02/11/2016 Daily Politics

In September, scandal-hit Labour MP Keith Vaz judged himself "not fit"

But now he's been appointed to another Commons

How will Ireland - on both sides of the border -

The Irish government is hosting all-Ireland talks today

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be facing each other over

the despatch box at Prime Minister's Questions.

We'll bring you all the action live at midday.

Should the England, Scotland and Wales football teams defy Fifa

and wear poppies during next week's World Cup qualifiers?

All that in the next hour and a half of the very finest public

And with us for the whole of the programme today are two

politicians who as far as we know have never wrestled

The Northern Ireland Secretary, James Brokenshire, and the Shadow

First today though, let's talk about Keith Vaz.

The Labour MP has seen off an attempt by Tory MPs

to prevent him getting a seat on a Commons committee.

Conservative Andrew Bridgen tried to block his appointment

to the Justice Committee following newspaper claims that

Mr Vaz paid for the services of two male sex workers.

But his attempt was rejected in a Commons vote by 203 to 7.

Mr Vaz quit as chairman of the influential Home Affairs

Andrew Bridgen joins us now from Central Lobby.

Why did you tried to block Keith Vaz's appointment to do justice

select committee? Lacen 's month he resigned from the home affairs

select committee. He didn't think he was a fit and proper person to

remain on back committee. There are issues around this investigation and

those matters are not resolved. Yet this month, Keith Vaz wings he a

person who is fit and proper to be on the justice select committee.

This actually brings the whole of our into disrepute. The Metropolitan

Police are still assessing if any criminal offences were committed by

Keith Vaz, so there isn't an investigation as such, going on. Why

is this the appropriate forum for you to raise these matters? It is

not the arena for bringing up grievances you may have? The

procedure was, although it is a Labour nomination for the committee,

it has to be approved by the whole house, it is a committee of the

whole house. I had the opportunity to raise my concerns and I am

disappointed with the results. But it has my concerns and the concerns

of many members on the record and if it hadn't been for government

whipping, it would have been a better result. Many felt it was

anti-Parliamentary that you are trying to subvert parliamentary

traditions instead of airing your concerns in an appropriate manner.

Not at all, these parliamentary traditions, the voting on the

chairman of a select committee, this has only been a convention for the

last few years. At the end of the day we are talking about the

reputation of Parliament. I think people in the country will be

bemused that anyone would the dark cloud hanging over them, that Keith

Vaz has, but possibly, with a police investigation possibly pending, a

full Parliamentary standards investigation going to be carried

out if the police don't investigate criminally, but someone could be

nominated and get onto the justice committee at this time. But you

wouldn't have a problem if Labour MPs tried to block nominations to

select committee, even if there was a dark cloud, although no

allegations have been proven at this point? If someone has genuine

concerns about the suitability of someone to be in a position of much

influence, of great influence in this Parliament, it is quite right,

it is the duty of other members to raise these concerns. That was the

format I had to do it. Raising concerns is one thing, but you

wouldn't have a problem with Labour MPs blocking conservative MPs

applying for the same appointments? As long as they were legitimate

concerns. The ones who voted him on soon the select committee where your

fellow Conservative MPs. They could be a victim of fortune of Keith

Vaz's future activities. I worry whether colleagues may live to

regret that. Andrew Bridgen, thank you.

Why did you vote for Keith Vaz to be on the justice committee of all

committees? It comes down to the principle on the independence of

select committees and individual parties selecting who they should

have. The Labour Party put forward Kate Green and Keith Vaz to serve on

the justice committee. In the sense of the proprieties of Parliament of

the robustness of select committees, it is the Labour Party to do that.

There is the sense of resident, if other parties then somehow are able

to undo that, then it can cut across the whole scrutiny process. That is

the Parliamentary situation. Please explain to our viewers why it was

writer of Keith Vaz to resign from the home affairs select committee,

but now be appointed to the justice select committee? Ultimately, it is

a decision for the Labour Party. Did you vote with a heavy heart for Mr

Vaz? I voted in support of the process we have on individual

parties being able to nominate to serve on select committees. It is a

matter who the other side nominates, you would sheep like go through the

lobby in favour? It is rather, we do have a principle of select

committees being robust, being able to hold people like myself to

account and Keith Vaz did that on a number of occasions in some of my

previous roles. If we believe in the ability for parties to nominate, to

nominate their own people and each party has its own process to do so.

Why did Labour nominate him? We had two vacancies on the committee and

two MPs put themselves forward. There was no election and they went

on to the committee. Couldn't you have chosen somebody else? Why is it

appropriate for Keith Vaz to be on the justice committee, of all

committees, when it was inappropriate for him to stay on the

home affairs committee? It is a decision for Keith. He was chair of

the home affairs select committee and he stood down as chair. It is a

nicety, but he is a member of the justice select committee, he is not

sharing it. It is a decision for Keith to make himself as to whether

he thought he should be. It is like Pontius Pilate act from both of you,

washing your hands, down to Keith Vaz, it is just process. People

watching will wonder how a man, with a chequered history on many matters,

under a possible police investigation and standards

investigation is sitting on the justice committee! I have some

sympathy with that view. Had I been Keith, I don't think I would have

put myself forward for that position. But the fact is, you can't

pick and choose. He is an elected MP, there to represent his

constituents and needs to play a role in Parliament. Unless there are

findings against him which means he shouldn't be in this position, we

should let him make the decision. Did you vote for him? I didn't take

part in the vote, I was trying to stop a constituent being deported.

Most of the people who voted for Keith Vaz were Tories. Only 38

Labour MPs voted for Keith Vaz. Why? You have to ask them. They couldn't

all have been looking after their constituents at the same time. They

could have been. I can only give you my view cannot speak for my

colleagues. As a minister has said, the system operates, the opposition

party gets to nominate who will sit on these select committees, which

are meant to be operated in a way, independent from government and

opposition. They meant to be inquisitorial and so on. Yet only 38

Labour MPs could vote for Keith Vaz. It tells us something. I am not sure

what, but it says something? You can impute into what that may mean. I

haven't spoken to the 38 people who did support it and you would have to

ask them why they did and others why they didn't. How come he got in with

the Tory vote. They all turned up, including 11 ministers. Most of the

203 who voted were Tories and Labour couldn't be bothered. Ultimately,

there was a division that was called. I voted as others did, in

support of the independence of committees, the independence of

individual parties being able to do that. Seven voted against. It was a

cross-section from across Parliament who voted in support of that

principle. We will leave that there, I think we have got as far as we can

combat for the moment. Brexit is one of the biggest

challenges facing the Irish government with implications

for Ireland north and south. Today, the Irish government

is hosting cross-border talks with politicians, business

representatives and interest groups. The issue of the Irish border

will top the agenda, along with discussions about trade

and the peace process. The border is the only land

boundary between the UK In 1922, the Irish Free State

was established, and with it, a Common Travel Area

between the UK and Ireland. This meant nationals of both

countries could travel freely In 1973, both the UK and Ireland

became members of the EU. Since both countries

joined on the same day, the border has never been one

between a member and a non-member. Now June's Brexit vote

has put the future of Both the UK and Irish governments

say they want to keep But after Brexit the border

between north and south will become The EU's Brexit Taskforce said

the whole EU might need to sign off on how the UK and Ireland plan

to police it. A harder border is likely to cause

significant disruption and could recall the difficult

decades of the Troubles. An alternative could be

a border between Ireland and mainland Britain -

but that would mean checks on people travelling between different parts

of the UK. And I'm joined now from Dublin

by Ireland correspondent Chris Page. Welcome to the daily politics. What

has been happening at the conference? The Irish government

regard this as a very important day. At this hospital, grand setting for

what they are calling an all island 's civil dialogue. Note that the EU

state will be affected more by Brexit than the Republic of Ireland.

End Kenny has said it is the biggest social and economic challenge facing

island in the last 50 years. The government says they have the widest

conversation about Brexit with North and South. 300 people are attending

this conference, trade unionists, business representatives and other

groups and they are focusing on cross-border trade, ?1 billion worth

of goods cross the Irish Sea every week. Also, the peace process and

the implications for the border are very high on the government's list

of priorities. Notable absentees are the Unionist parties from Northern

Ireland. They decided not to come to this event. That undermines the idea

of it being the broadest conversation with as many parties,

or interested parties as possible. The DUP leader, Arlene Foster has

discussed it as a grandstanding exercise, making her case very

clear. But what has been the reaction to that? People have said

they are disappointed unionists have not come. Whenever the Democratic

Unionist party had their conference, Arlene Foster hardened her rhetoric

on this and said it was an exercise in grandstanding. The Unionists have

said they have enough ways to engage with Dublin and people here,

including ministers in the Irish government are putting the emphasis

on another meeting taking place later this month, the meeting of the

North, South ministerial. That would allow ministers from storm onto sand

Dublin to confer regularly on matters which are important to them.

There will be one of those Summit in Northern Ireland later this month

and it will very much focus on Brexit. That is being pointed to by

many here as being the next key meeting in this process. Everyone is

trying to put a very positive accents of what is happening, saying

it will be an important and useful exercise in forming the Irish

government's progression in the Brexit talks.

You are the Secretary of State 's four Northern Ireland. Why are you

not at these talks? It is about forming preparations for discussions

around Brexit. We do meet bilaterally with the Irish

government on a regular basis. There are other things which are put into

place. We have the British- Irish Council which brings together

ourselves with the Irish government, with the Executive and other

devolved Administration 's. The Irish government have called this a

meeting of all Ireland. They say there is real concern in Dublin

about the implications of Brexit for the whole island and the

relationship of Ireland, the South with the Norse and with the UK. --

north. Reassurances have been given in a number of ways. I have had

meetings with the Irish Foreign Minister and we have had some good

and positive exchanges. It is unique relationship we have. The Irish

government has arranged today's event to form their approach to this

full stop that does not mean there are not other discussions that will

take place. The Northern Irish Council are very keen. There are

always discussions. The Irish government regards this as

important. Charles Flanagan joins us now from

the talks in Dublin. Thank you for joining us. There are a number of

concerns. We have four minutes. Perhaps we could go through some of

the most important concerns you have about Britain's departure from the

EU. What is your worry with the border? This is a very important

engagement when we have an opportunity of listening, not only

to political leaders, but also to business leaders and

representatives, civic society. There are 6 million people on the

island of Ireland, 4.5 million in southern Ireland. The issue of the

future relationship between the UK and the European Union is of course

of vital importance to us strategically in terms of our

economy. We do not have much time. Forgive me. What I am trying to get

at, since we have the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here,

what are your concerns? What is your main concern about what happens to

the border? The main concern is that our priorities will not be taken

into consideration. Our priorities are clear. The preservation of the

Common travel arrangement which has been in place since 1926. Secondly,

that the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement remains intact

and fully honoured. That is where the issue of the border is one of

immense importance. Having regard to the fact we now have an invisible

border between North and South where in excess of 30,000 people across

the border every day to work, to school, to college, to farm. Any

attempt to reintroduce what might be described as a heavily fortified

border or a hard border is certainly going to meditate against what has

been a hugely positive and constructive relationship North and

South since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Hitting

aside a military 's border, which may or may not happen, if the United

Kingdom leaves and we are no longer in the single market and we are no

longer in the customs union, does it follow in your view that there would

have to be customs on the border between North and South? What

follows if that is the case, and it is not clear that with either case,

but what would follow would be a very serious situation which would

require a special arrangement on the matter of the island of Ireland. We

don't really know at this stage what the ask of the UK Government will

be. Our priorities are clear. We are listening to colleagues on the

island of Ireland today. We welcome those who have joined us from

Northern Ireland. We want to know what the priorities of the British

government will be and of course the priorities of the Northern

Executive. We welcome the fact that Theresa May has indicated that

Article 15 Otis will be served at the latest at the end of next March.

-- the Article 50 notice. What will follow a BAC arrears round of

negotiations. In order to prepare fully, I would be obliged to hear

from my colleagues across the water as to what exactly the ask would be.

We are preparing this morning and over the next few months a range of

contingencies from the softest of soft Brexit to the hardest. This is

really going to be impacting not only on our economy but also on

society. Thank you for joining us this morning from the all Ireland

talks taking place. James, let me come to you. The Common travel area

which since the 1920s, has allowed British citizens to go to Ireland

and Irish citizens to come here into work, travel, holiday in an

untroubled way, are you in a position to guarantee that

continuation after Brexit? We have the negotiations still to come. We

know that is the case. What I can say clearly and, as Charlie has

indicated, there is a strong will between the Irish government and

ourselves to see the Common travel area will be respected. Its

existence has been recognised in treaties. There needs to be a clear

understanding among EU states of the significance of the Common travel

area and the significance of border issues in connection with the

politics of Northern Ireland and the issues. If Dublin wants it and you

would want it to continue, what would stop it? Ultimately, because

it is part of the overall negotiation. It existed before we

joined the EU. You are right in making that clear point. It did

exist before we joined be you and therefore that shares will that the

Irish government and ourselves would have going into that negotiation,

recognising that Ireland would remain in the European Union but it

will not be part of the Schengen zone. The Irish government has no

intent... They did not join partly because of the common travel area in

the first place. They are not wanting to do that. As of this

morning right you cannot guarantee the continuation of the common

travel arrangement between Britain and Ireland. It is part of the

negotiations, you tell us? It is part of what we need to secure from

the outcome of the negotiations. That is the key thing. It is an

essential point. Let me ask you something out. If we are outside the

single market and the customs union, and there may be tariffs on some

things between us and be you, you would have to put customs posts up

on the border, wouldn't you? It is important that I do not hypothesise.

We, as the Government, are in the process of analysing all of these

issues. Analysing and considering whether we should remain in the

customs union or not. So, there could be customs posts. What I do

need to be clear on this is that we are looking at the evidence, looking

at ways in which you can approach this. There are no binary issues.

The Prime Minister has said it this in relation to the customs union. It

is how we are working with the Irish government on how we can achieve

that outcome, which is not seeing a return to the borders of the past. A

brief thought from you on this. There is a lot of uncertainty in

Northern Ireland and the Republic about what Brexit means. I am not

sure people will be reassured in any way by what they have just heard. We

haven't heard anything. We do not know what the plan is. Not in

Northern Ireland and Ireland and we do not know what the plan is for the

UK. OK. Let's move on. Now, a certain Canadian banker

is reported to have been a bit upset by Theresa May's criticism

in her conference speech of the "international elites" -

a group she said she was According to The Times newspaper,

the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, took these

comments rather personally. In fact, the paper suggests it may

even have had something to do with his decision to quit his post

two years early, in 2019, and return A bit of an over-reaction you might

think, or as one member of the Cameron Government apparently

put it "for a supposed Master of the Universe,

he has a very thin skin". Well, nobody could accuse us

here at the Daily Politics of being either part

of an international elite or thin skinned but we do control something

even the Masters of the Universe can't influence - the supply

of Daily Politics mugs. Diminishing though, the supply. It

is. That is because the pound is slumped.

To be in with a chance of getting your hands on a member

of the crockery elite, just tell us when this happened.

MUSIC: "There Must Be An Angel" by Eurythmics

I went into this agreement because I was not prepared

to tolerate a situation of continuing violence.

# Boy, you've got to prove your love to me

Handsworth riots is already expected to run into several million pounds.

When the cameras first went in this afternoon,

the place was absolutely jam-packed with peers.

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address - that's

Entries must arrive by 12:30pm today, and you can

see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year

And no, I don't know why they have to be in by 12:30 p.m..

And that can mean only one thing, yes, Prime Minister's

What is likely to come up today? As we see that crisp and beautiful

autumn morning, it is not long before the Autumn Statement. We are

starting to see noises off we traditionally see at this time of

year. Ministers behind-the-scenes trying to persuade Philip Hammond to

crank open his cheque book. Briefings about the kind of Autumn

Statement we might expect. Have a brand-new Chancellor, are very

different character to the previous one. A lot of expectation that the

Autumn Statement will be more muted, not so politically grand as an

event. Mr Brown and Mr Osborne used that. Mr Brown was always making an

announcement about schools in his budget. That backfired. The forced

academies age and was chucked over the side last week. There are a list

of things George Osborne propose which have hit the dustcart. If he

is watching whenever the year is quite sure what he is doing with all

of his time that he might want to suggest things he dreamt up that

have disappeared. In a sense, the Autumn Statement and the budget used

to be a proxy for demonstrations that the Chancellor has had huge

influence over domestic policy, a massive influence over domestic

policy. That is not the case. But it Hammond is a different kind of

Chancellor. He has already indicated the big headline will be using

different kinds of targets to bring down the deficit in a more for

giving way, if you like, to create giant airbags. Depending on economic

circumstances. Precisely. He outlined some of his thoughts to the

Cabinet. It is almost likely have Cabinet government. It is almost

like we have political ministers sitting here. What about the word

resit? He did use that word. It will be much more downbeat, if you like.

Much more mooted. There is no question this is the first big shop

window for him as Chancellor. The Government is very well aware of the

economic dangers and how to pace ourselves from the European Union

for the bid is also clear he has made a break with what went before.

Probably George Osborne would have done the same thing, ditch his own

fiscal rules because of uncertainty around the economy. He was going to

give us a punishment budget, raise taxes and cut spending. The macro

economic justification for which has always eluded me if you're going

into recession. Hard to believe a Chancellor would do such a thing

rather than looking at the numbers, as they are. The key thing for the

Autumn Statement, Mr Hammond would have the latest OBR forecast for

2017. My understanding is privately Mr Hammond is Leumi about 2017. Even

on the record, he has said we are looking at a roller-coaster. --

Leumi. The Chancellor has basically put up a big red warning light

saying things might get grim and tough. The difference for him in

terms of judgments he has two made is we will have new forecasts but

very limited amounts of real reaction, if you like, real data. He

will try to make judgments about several years ahead based on only

three months since the world was turned upside down by the referendum

result. Westminster is moving to that focus now and Labour MPs, of

course no different MPs on the back bench, are starting to campaign on

things they would like to see for that we have seen MPs talking about

universal credit cuts. Some Tory MPs have considered joining forces with

SNP members on that. Foreign steel is being used in our

key defence projects. We know the Prime Minister likes to channel the

iron Lady, but when will she show some metal in standing up for some

British made steel? This government has stood up for British made steel

and we have made a number of measures for the steel industry. But

the honourable gentleman says there is no clarity in relation to Brexit.

I am clear that what we want to achieve is the best possible deal

for businesses in the United Kingdom to be able to trade and operate

within the single European market. Prime Minister, I applaud the

government's continued commitment to infrastructure development with 6000

projects in the pipeline worth 480 billion. Can the government is

quickly take forward the lower Thames crossing, and extra

investment in roads that will help to build more homes, jobs and

businesses in the Thames Gateway area? I am grateful to my honourable

friend I'm grateful to him for recognising the contribution the

government has made. The importance of that investment, we have

consulted on proposals around the lower Thames crossing. There were

more than 47,000 responses and those are being considered and the

Secretary of State for Transport will make his response in due

course. Jeremy Corbyn. Could I take this opportunity of welcoming Mesa

Constance McGinn and hope the evidently effective crash course in

midwifery undertaken by my honourable friend, the member for

Saint Helens Norton isn't assigned to the government we believe in

midwifery training. -- downgrading midwifery training. Mr Speaker, a

few months ago on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister

promised to stand up for families who are just managing to get by.

However, however, we now know these were just empty words as this

government plans to cut work allowances for exactly those

families who are just getting by. Isn't it the case her cuts to

universal credit will leave millions worse off? First of all can I

congratulate the right honourable gentleman on the birth of I

understand, his granddaughter. No? Then, I completely missed the point.

In that case... Wait for it. In that case, can I

just say perhaps one should never trust a former Chief Whip!

LAUGHTER. And on the point the right

honourable gentleman has raised in relation to universal credit, the

introduction of universal credit was an important reform brought about in

the welfare system. It is more simple so people can see much more

easily where they stand in relation to benefits. Crucially, the point

about universal credit is making short work always pays. As people

work more, they earn more. It is right we don't want to see people

just written off to a life on benefits, but we are encouraging

people to get into the workplace. It is unfair to blame a former Chief

Whip for some confusion. Not a very gallant. Can we not just Admir the

member for Saint Helen 's North for his work? Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, it

is extremely rude to point! Mr Speaker, her predecessor abandoned

these same cuts to working people through the tax credit system. Now

she is enacting them through universal credit. The Centre for

Social Justice says these cuts will leave 3 million families ?1000 a

year worse off. Why is the Prime Minister slipping the same cuts in

through the back door? I have to say to the right honourable gentleman,

at least my Chief Whip has a job. On the serious point he raises about

universal credit, I repeat what I have just said. It is important to

look at why universal credit was introduced. Under the benefits

system under the Labour government, what we saw was too many people

finding they were better off on benefits than they were in work.

What is important is the value work, we value getting people into work,

where they are able to work. But we want a system that is fair and it is

a system that is fair both to those who need the benefits, but also fair

to those who pay for the benefits through their taxes. There are many

families struggling to make ends meet who are paying for the benefits

of others. I want a system that is fair to them as well. This week, Mr

Speaker, Oxford University studies found that there is a direct link

between rising benefit sanctions and rising demand for food banks. A

million people accessed a foodbank last year to receive parcel. Only

40,000 did so in 2010. I welcome the government's promised to review the

workplace assessment for disabled people, but will she reassess the

whole punitive sanctions regime? It is absolutely right that in our

welfare system, we have a system that make sure those people who

receive benefits, are those who it is right to receive benefits. That's

why we have assessments in our welfare system. It is also important

in our welfare system, we ensure those who are able to get into the

workplace, are making every effort to get into the workplace. That's

why we have sanctions. What the right honourable gentleman wants is

no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. That's not fair

to the people accessing the welfare system and it's not fair to the tax

payers who are paying for it. According to Sheffield Hallam

University study, one in five claimants who have been sanctioned

became homeless as a result. Many of those included families with

children. Could I recommend the Prime Minister supports British

cinema and takes herself along to the cinema to see a film called I,

Daniel Blaikie. And perhaps she could take the Work and Pensions

Secretary with her because he described the film as unfair and

then went on to admit he had never seen it. He has a very fair sense of

judgment. But I will tell her what is unfair, Annex servicemen dying

without food in his own due to the government's sanction regime. It is

time we ended this institutionalised barbarity against often, very

vulnerable people. I have to say to the right honourable gentleman, of

course it is important that in our welfare system we ensure those who

need the support the state is giving them to the benefit system are able

to access the bat. But it is important in our system, those who

are paying for it feels the system is fair to them as well. That is

right, that is why we need to have work capability assessments, it is

why we need to have sanctions in our system. The right honourable

gentleman has a view there should be no sanctions and unlimited welfare.

I have to say to him, the Labour Party is drifting away from the

views of Labour voters. It is this party that understands working-class

people. Mr Speaker, the housing benefit bill has gone up by more

than ?4 billion because of high levels of friends and the necessity

of supporting people in that. Is that a sensible use of public money?

I think not. In response to the March budget, I asked the Chancellor

to abandon... I asked the Chancellor, Mr Speaker, to abandon

the ?30 cut for disabled people on Employment and Support Allowance,

unable to work. But with support may be able to work in the future. They

want to be able to get into work. What evidence does the Prime

Minister have that imposing poverty on people with disabilities actually

helps them into work? I am pleased to say, what we have seen under this

government is nearly half a million disabled people now in the

workplace. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has launched a

Green paper on work which is looking at how we can continue to provide

and increase support for those who regard the tables and want to get

into the workplace. But he started by asking me about the increased in

housing benefit. If he thinks the amount of money spent on housing

benefit, is so important, why did he opposed the changes we proposed the

housing benefit is to introduce the housing benefit bill? As the Prime

Minister knows, my concern and those of my party is the incredible amount

of money being paid into the private rented sector by excessive rent and

that could be brought under control and handled much better. Mr Speaker,

many people in this House will have been deeply moved by my honourable

friend, the member of the Swansea East's article about the tragic

death of her son and having to take out a bank loan for the cost of the

funeral. The Sunday Mirror with the support of the Labour Party are

calling for an end to cancel charges the parent is laying a child to

rest. It would cost ?10 million a year, a small proportion of

government expenditure to ensure every Council could ensure those

laying a child to rest could not have a bill imposed on them by the

local authority. I hope the Prime Minister can act on this? I

recognise those issues, there are facilities available through the

social fund social scheme the payments for people who meet those

eligibility conditions. It is difficult for anybody when they have

to go through the tragedy of losing a child and then facing the

consequences of the sorts the right honourable gentleman makes. We are

making sure, in relation to local authorities, they now have the extra

revenue available to them to business rates under the local

revenues. It is up to councils to consider what they wish to do in

this. But I say there are facilities available through the social fund

funeral expenses to deal with the issue he raises. David McIntosh.

Northamptonshire has, for a long time, been affected by a growing

population without the right level of funding for public services. Can

my right honourable friend assure meet the current reviews into the

funding formulas for school, policing and health will reflect the

population growth in Northampton and the rest of the county so services

get the funding they need? I can say we have protected the

schools budget in relation to funding per pupil and we have

protected the police budget. As we look at various ways we are funding

public services in the constituency and County of Northampton, we will

look at the very issue of what is right in terms of the need of the

local area and the numbers. Angus Robertson. It is with sadness we

learn of the death... No doubt the Prime Minister and right honourable

colleagues will extend their condolences to the family, friends

and colleagues of a serviceman who has died so tragically. The Prime

Minister says she wants to tackle international and domestic tax

avoidance and serious criminality. On these benches we support this. If

she were told that specific UK financial vehicles are being used

for tax avoidance and other serious commonality, what would you do about

it? -- criminality. Can I first of all say, I'm sure the whole House

would wish to pass on condolences of the friends and family of the

service man who died. We have done a significant amount in terms of tax

avoidance. What should anybody do if they have evidence of people

avoiding tax? I suggest he speaks to HMRC. Scottish limited partnerships

were established by this House in 1907 are now being aggressively

marketed internationally, especially in Eastern Europe. The International

Monetary Fund has warned on the risk imposed and the fight against global

money laundering and against organised crime. It is a matter of

public record that SLP 's affected as France for child abuse and have

been part of corruption in Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova and include

the arms industry. Given the seriousness of this industry and the

Prime Minister's and to deal with criminality but the lack of

progress, will she agreed to meet with me to discuss a joint way

forward? The right honourable gentleman raises issues around

criminality and investigations into criminal activity that is taking

place and he talks about the issue of websites peddling child abuse and

child sexual exploitation. It is in order to increase our ability to

deal with this criminal activity that we created the National Crime

Agency, we have been ensuring we have been working on other issues

with the city like money-laundering, and we are looking at the whole

question of how we can ensure we are taking effective action on criminal

activity. I am pleased to say, he keeps saying, well I meet with him?

As he knows, I do meet with him on occasions. I am always happy to meet

the right honourable gentleman. If he wants to talk to me about dealing

with criminal activity, I will be a good tell him about the work that

has been done under this government working with the city on

money-laundering and enhancing our ability to deal with the sort of

criminal activity he is talking about. Does the Prime Minister agree

it is disappointed with it. Here from the Leader of the Opposition

any welcome for the huge boost to manufacturing and employment that

have come from the Nissan decision? Does she agree that demonstrates

great confidence in the UK with benefits throughout the supply

change, including companies like Automotive Installations, in my

constituency. It is extremely disappointing that the leader of the

position has not actually welcomed, unlike his colleague, the honourable

member for Sunderland West and Washington, who has welcomed the

fact that these jobs have been saved in her constituency and in the

supply chain around the country. It is that supply chain which is every

bit as important. I know that Automotive Installations are

receiving money and I wish them all the best for the future. What

assurances can the Prime Minister give to the agri- food sector right

across the United Kingdom that it would be given the important status

that is required when it comes to any Brexit negotiations? I can

absolutely assure the honourable gentleman that we are determined,

first of all, to get the best possible deal on exiting the

European Union for the British people. We're looking at the various

sectors. We are very conscious of the importance of food in the

agricultural sector across the United Kingdom and particularly of

the importance to that sector to Northern Ireland. We will be doing

all we can to listen to the representations made by the Northern

Ireland Executive and make sure we have the best deal possible for

agri- food sector. Last week's announcement on accelerated access

to medicines report will make a positive impact to the lives of

children and adults with a rare genetic and un-diagnosed condition.

Decades patients have struggled to get access to this medicine. The

progress made but I honourable friend from Mid Norfolk will make

massive progress on that. Will the Prime Minister confirmed that if the

programme is successful to the first five to ten drugs in the first year

it will be extended further drugs in the following years? You are right

to welcome the accelerated access you and to pay tribute for our

honourable member for Mid Norfolk who has placed life sciences in the

UK on the agenda and ensure we are able to sue the UK developing at

best possible place to develop new drugs. That is what we want to see.

With regard to the recommendations from the review, the Department of

Health will be responding to those shortly. I think this is an

important element in terms of our ability to accelerate that access to

drugs, which is to the benefit of patients. Recent weeks have seen

three government ministers express three different views on what will

happen while industry cries out for clarity. Not Brexit, surprisingly

enough but the oil and gas industry. Can I asked the Prime Minister will

she bring forward additional support for this industry in the Autumn

Statement or is she happy to sit back and see more jobs lost? I say

to the honourable gentleman, of course we understand the challenges

the UK oil and gas industry are facing and we take those very

seriously. I also say to him that is why we have established the oil and

gas authority and why we have taken action. The 2.3 billion package of

measures in the last two budgets to make sure the North Sea continues to

attract investment and safeguard the future of this vital national asset.

We have taken a range of measures. We understand the concerns about the

oil and gas industry and assess what the Government has taken action. --

and that is why. Watch as the airport and the Medway industrial

estate are home to a number of science SMEs which are doing wonders

to our economy. I would like to congratulate the decision to take a

cohort of SMEs to help increase trading relationships with emerging

economies. Can I ask if her dedication will continue in ensuring

all parts of our economy are able to seize the opportunities that present

themselves as we leave be you? You are right about the importance of

small and medium-sized businesses and obviously as she has referenced

in the technology industry. That is why I am pleased in my trip to India

I will be taking leading small and medium-sized businesses in life

sciences and technology sectors. It is important to get them to forge

trading links with India. As we look at the races for leaving the

European Union we will be taking the interests of all sectors into

account. -- the arrangements. Tartar speciality is a big employer in my

constituency. It's workforce is worried by the period of uncertainty

and acted by Tata Steel. With the Prime Minister use her trade visit

to India to secure the future production of steel in Britain and

convey the importance of Tata Steel acting as a responsible owner and

seller of its UK assets? I can assure the honourable lady we

recognise the importance of steel and the importance of temper macro

in the United Kingdom. That is why we have had discussions with Tata in

the United Kingdom and we will continue to sow do. -- the

importance of Tata. My constituency apparently contains more powers than

any other. This means world class cheese. Can the Prime Minister

ensure West Country farmers that in best deal for Britain the interests

of the agricultural industry and farming community will be foremost

in her mind question that will she popped down to Somerset soon for

perhaps a chunk of cheddar and drop of cider? We are grateful to the

honourable gentleman. The Prime Minister. His invitation for West

Country cheese and cider is an invitation which is difficult to

refuse. I look forward at some stage of coming down into Somerset and

being able to sample those products. He is absolutely right about the

importance of our agricultural sector to economies across the UK,

but particular parts of the UK rely heavily on the agricultural sector.

We will be taking their needs and considerations into account as we

negotiate the best possible deal for this country leaving the EU. This

morning, the High Court ruled that the Government has comprehensively

failed to properly tackle air pollution. Which does the Prime

Minister feel is worse? The Government losing in the High Court

for a second time or the 40,000 early deaths that may result from

air pollution every year in the UK? I have been asked about equity in

this chamber previously at PMQs. -- air quality. We always recognise

there is more for the Government to do. We have been doing a lot in this

area. We have been putting extra money into actions that will relieve

the issues around are quality. We recognise that Defra needs to look

at the judgment made by the courts and we had to look again at the

proposals we will bring forward. Nobly in this Has doubts the

importance of the issue of air quality. There is more to do and we

will do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister will remember

visiting the Witney constituency recently. Chipping Norton has been

short listed for the great British high street awards. Does she join me

in congratulating the small businesses on Chipping Norton and

Tammy what support the Government offers to the small businesses in

our market towns? -- and tell me. Can I take this opportunity, my

first opportunity in this chamber, to welcome my honourable friend to

this chamber and for his excellent result in the by-election? Can I

just say, his question brings back many happy memories for me. As a

child, Chipping Norton was our local town and I use together and spend my

pocket money assiduously in the shops in Chipping Norton, so I have

done my bit for his high-street and we are clear, as the Government,

that business rates and issues regarding that will support local

businesses. We are always grateful for extra information and we have

now had it. This government's record on immigration detention is

disgraceful. Amid concern over plans to get a short-term detention centre

near Glasgow airport, will she use this as an bush unity to rethink her

detention policy? -- and opportunity. A lot of work has been

done by the Government on the issue of immigration detention and the

number of changes have taken place. An Independent review took place the

year or so ago on the question of detention of people. I would say, it

is important that where there are people who are due to be removed

from this country, and the prospect is that actually they could be lost

in the system if they are not being detained, there are circumstances in

which it is right to detain people in the immigration estate. We need

to make sure we have got that right and that is why a lot of work has

been bananas. The fundamental point, I suspect he does not think we

should detain anybody in relation to immigration enforcement but we

believe they should rightfully be detained before they are removed

from this country. When people make fun of Christianity in this country,

it rightly turns the other cheek. When a young gymnast, Louis Smith,

makes fun of another religion widely practised in this country, he is

hounded on Twitter by the media and suspended by his association. For

goodness sake, this man received death threats and we have all looked

the other way. My question to the Prime Minister is, what is going on

in this country? I no longer understand the rules. I understand

the level of concern my honourable friend has raised in relation to

this matter. This is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of

expression and freedom of its buses like a speech in this country. That

is essential in underpinning our democracy. We also value tolerance

to others, tolerance in relation to religion. This is one of the issues

we have looked at in the counter extremism strategy the Government

has produced. I think we need to ensure it is right that people can

have that freedom of expression but in so doing that right has a

responsibility as well. That is a responsibility recognise the

importance of tolerance to others. Mr Speaker, today's daily record

leads on DWP issues. Is the Prime Minister aware Telephone call to the

Department for Work and Pensions by a severely disabled person of a

carer can cost up to 45p a minute. This is a considerable sum from the

Social Security entitlement. Should a disabled citizen pay this price or

does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should end this telephone

tax on the most honourable in our society? The honourable gentleman

raises an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in this

House. The Government is in promoting new guidelines in relation

to the operation of these telephone lines and a number of lines are

being reduced. The Government has recognised this issue and is taking

action. The last 18 months have been hell for commuters in my

constituency in Lewis at using the southern row network. Last night a

journey which should have taken an hour took over four hours. And I

begged the Prime Minister to intervene on the southern network?

Why we have a country that works for everyone we have a railway that

works for no one. I feel for my honourable friend in relation to the

journey she had to go through last night and the extended time that

tip. We have my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State

transport, who has taken action in recent weeks in relation to the

improvements are necessary. We have stepped in to invest ?20 million to

tackle the breakdown on the southern row network that has proven so

difficult to passengers. -- southern rail. I recognise the degree of

concern. The Secretary of State transport is working on this to

ensure those improvements. Has the Prime Minister spotted the ludicrous

refusal by Fifa, the footballing federation, to let our players wear

poppies at the forthcoming Scotland - England game? Will he tell the

respective associations that in this country we decide when to wear

poppies? And they will be wearing them at Wembley. I think the stance

that has been taken by Fifa is utterly outrageous. Our football

players want to recognise and respect those who have given their

lives for our safety and security. I think it is absolutely right they

should be able to do so. It is for our football associations but a

clear message is going from this House. We want our players to be

able to wear those poppies. I have to say two feet, before they start

telling us what to do, they ought to sort their own house out. -- I have

to say to Fifa. Could I congratulate my right honourable friend on her

recent announcement of a task force to stamp out the file business of

modern slavery? Would she join me in congratulating my constituents, Mike

Emberson, and the men I trust on their ten years of work with the

victims and the 70 places they now provide across their homes for these

most unfortunate women? -- Menai. I have met with representatives from

the Menai Trust. It is right we continue our momentum in the fight

against modern slavery. Too much slavery is taking place on the

streets and in the towns and villages of this country. That is

why the task force I have setup will continue that momentum. We will be

relentless in our pursuit of ensuring we eradicate modern

slavery. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In July, the Armed Forces charity

published an in-depth survey of nearly 1000 working age veterans.

85% thought the UK did not give them enough support. Only 16% thought the

Armed Forces covenant was being implemented effectively. What is the

Prime Minister doing personally to change this? We absolutely recognise

the debt we owe to our veterans. That is why we have the Armed Forces

covenant. We recognise the support necessary for veterans. He talks

about what we can do. One thing we can do is to help people coming out

of the Armed Forces actually find their way into the world of work.

That is quite is important that we have a system which helps them to

find a support necessary to get into the world of work and we have an

economy providing jobs that people need. This week it is wind energy

week. The devell at the offshore wind sector is vital to my

Cleethorpes constituency. Can you ensure the governor will continue to

work with the industry to develop future jobs for young people with

emphasis on training? I am happy to reassure my honourable friend that

the Government will continue to work with this industry. It has been an

important development for the United Kingdom and an important part of the

amount of energy we are now generating from renewables. As he

said it does provide jobs and we need to ensure we look at training

for people to be able to take up those jobs. That is why skills is

part of the work we are doing on our future industrial strategy. Will the

Prime Minister agree with me that it is highly irresponsible and

dangerous for people to talk up the prospects of increased violence in

Northern Ireland as a result of us are leaving the U? People should

used the agreed institutions set up under various agreements, not stand

outside them or create new ones. Can she assure me it will not result in

an impeding of the way that people in countries within the UK connect

with each other? I am very happy to get the right honourable gentleman

that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom.

No change will take place. It is right that what we will do in Brexit

is ensure it is a good deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. Those

who wish to encourage violence off the back of that frankly should be

ashamed of themselves. It is absolutely essential that we all

work together to make a success of this and get the best possible

opportunities for people across the whole of the United Kingdom. Will

she join me in praising Henley-on-Thames for receiving its

first tranche of community infrastructure money at the higher

rate because it has a neighbourhood plan? Will she join me in saying

this is the best means of giving communities a say over planning

issues? I am very happy to congratulate both my neighbouring MP

and congratulate Henley-on-Thames for achieving that. He is right.

Neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the planning system. That is

the way in which a local people can have a real say over what is

happening in their local area. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I add my

congratulations to my honourable friend and member for St Helens?

Moving swiftly from midwives to doctors, is the Prime Minister aware

that doctors in Doncaster are facing a crisis in primary care? As GPs

retire, it is proving almost impossible to get new ones to take

over their practices. Because of restrictions in the health and

social care act, NHS bodies cannot take necessary action, for example

to put in salaried GPs. Will she do something about this quickly because

otherwise many of my constituents will be left without a doctor? Mr

Speaker, can I say, because I did not after my unfortunate mistake I

made earlier about the right honourable gentleman, I failed to

add my congratulations to her honourable friend, the member for St

Helens. I am happy now to do. On the point of GPs, it is important that

we see the number of GPs coming through so that we can replace those

who are retiring. Over the last six years we have seen thousands more

GPs in our NHS that is why my right honourable friend, the Secretary of

State for Health, is ensuring we have a programme to bring forward

more GPs, more doctors into training, so we can ensure places

like her constituency and others around this House actually have GPs

in the numbers they need. Prime Minister's Questions come to

an end a little earlier by the standards of the current speaker.

Jeremy Corbyn asked about the cut in work allowances on universal credit.

Those of you who watched the Sunday Politics last weekend will know what

is involved. He said it leaves people worse off. He also talks

about than the rising number of people being sanctions on benefits

and it led to people becoming homeless. That was the gist of the

main exchanges. It all started after, the Prime Minister seemed to

think Jeremy Corbyn had just had a granddaughter. What I understand is,

there is a background to this. As a Labour MP, former whip called,

McGinn. He hacked to deliver his own baby. Mr Corbyn began PMQs by

congratulating him on the happy news. Theresa May for some reason.

Jeremy Corbyn was talking about the birth of his own granddaughter. When

she discovered that was not the case, immediately blamed her former

Chief Whip and I think current Transport Secretary, Patrick

McLaughlin for giving her duff news. So there we go. I am sure you all

wanted to know that. Made it clear. Jeremy Corbyn looked surprised. We

all looked surprised. The big story to come out of this was nothing to

do with that. It was when asked about Fifa's ban on teams wearing

poppies this weekend that it is outrageous that players should not

wear poppies this weekend, and before anything else and worrying

about poppies, it should sort its own house out.

Just a little bit on the common McGinn scenario. Someone said

politicians really shouldn't do jokes or witty observations. Ian

White lycees, Theresa May was able to whack Jeremy Corbyn with the

welfare party tag as David Cameron used to. She seemed to be

uncomfortable under questioning from Angus Robertson from the SNP.

Christopher says, one of Jeremy Corbyn's failure is his inability to

follow up on the answer the Prime Minister gives him, he just moves on

to the next question. Bill Taylor says, why didn't Jeremy Corbyn bring

up the Orgreave enquiry. People thought it was going to be announced

by the government, but Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, decided not to

give it the go-ahead because Labour did nothing about it. And someone

else says, do these people trawl through the obituaries to express

condolences. It is mostly people we have never heard about. It is morbid

and gruesome. Strange week with as oceans and

babies being delivered. The question about poppies and F came from a

Labour backbencher. It may be the Prime Minister wasn't aware that was

coming. But I would suggest for her to say it is utterly outrageous that

if it did come up, she knew what she would say about it? It seems she was

ready with an answer and an attack on Fifa, not the most difficult

people to attack, given what has happened at Fifa and she felt very

strongly about it and she was ready with the answer. And after a scrappy

session of PMQs, that was the standout answer. Something that will

be picked up on across-the-board. Whether what the British Prime

Minister says about Fifa's own rules and if they should apply is not

clear. Most voters in this country think it is ridiculous that Fifa can

set out a ruling that the English, Scottish and Welsh football teams

cannot wear poppies this weekend. Jeremy Corbyn concentrated on what

would be the cuts to some of the help on universal credit as it is

introduced. Which has the effect of making, for the working poor who are

dependent on benefits to top up their pay, the marginal rate of tax,

the loss of benefits, becomes a much higher than was originally

envisaged. Mr Corbyn didn't quote any Tory backbenchers and this, that

the Prime Minister is under pressure. He could have quoted Iain

Duncan Smith, who has said he believes these cuts should be

stopped. And forgive the brief history lesson, lasted the

government was pressured into dropping the planned cuts, but they

kept up with the planned cuts for universal credit. That will replace

the tax credit system. So the immediate cuts to families, which

would have been significant to people on tax credits, was deferred.

It didn't disappear and it will take place, if as scheduled, under

universal credit. People receiving tax credits will move onto the

universal credit system and the amount of support they will get will

be less than had been planned. But there isn't at the stage, any signed

the government will back down on this the Autumn Statement. The

campaign around it may gather momentum, but at this stage it

doesn't feel like the amount of pressure built up on George Osborne.

I will not ask you to pre-empt what is in the Autumn Statement, but the

Prime Minister has made a big deal of the just managing classes from

which, is the working poor. So therefore, we can judge her on this,

we can now look at what she does compared with the rhetoric on the

steps of Downing Street. In two ways, the working poor are about to

take a hit. One is the way Laura has been talking about, less of a top up

because of the cuts being made to their pretty low pay. The second, as

inflation rises, their benefits are not indexed linked, so they get hit

in that way and it could be a real terms cut for them. I don't quite

understand at the moment how she lives up to that working pro

rhetoric. What you are not taking into account is the national living

wage, the work going on to see that people are going into work. The

record levels of employment. As she said during PMQs, work should always

pay and the balance supporting those on welfare, but also those paying

for it as well. She made a clear point for those who aren't on high

wages but are equally contributing to the welfare system. It is that

overall balance she is articulating, the pathway to employment and the

life opportunity it brings. There are more working poor, but when 1.2

million get the rise in the national minimum wage, what marginal rate of

tax will they pay on it? We have the ?7 20 at the moment in relation to

the national living wage and that will increase steadily. But what

marginal rate of tax will they pay? I will not pre-empt the Autumn

Statement. For some people it could be as high as 75%, when you take

into account the tax they pay and the benefits they will lose. Another

?100, which could be a lot of money for the working poor, they lose ?75

of it. Would you do extra work for ?100 knowing he would lose ?70? It

is giving the sense of opportunity for people to yes, move into

employment. The welfare system is there as a hand up, to help people

through difficult opportunities. But as the Prime Minister also

indicated, we have this issue of sanctions, which the Leader of the

Opposition highlighted. There are a relatively small number of people

who are sanctions, but it is right we have the sense of helping people

into employment and if they don't play by those rules, then obviously

there are sanctions that can operate. I didn't ask about

sanctions, if the idea is to make work pay and encourage people to get

into work and to keep more of what they own, I don't understand how

taking away 75% of the extra effort they make is encouraging work to

pay. The point is, you have a welfare system where work should

always pay, the basic sense of employment and the wages you

receive. The richest people in this land don't face a marginal rate of

75%. If they did, there would be rushed to the Borders. But we expect

the working poor to marginal rates of tax up to that level. It used to

be higher, one stage it was over 90%. But 75, with seeing too many

people, to discourage trying to do a bit more, particularly if you are

already in a job that is hard work, minimum wage, long hours and no huge

remuneration. Then you are told you will get a pay rise. You think,

good, I deserve it. But then you are told, by the way he will only get

25% of that pay rise. It is not fair, is it? We are taking steps to

ensure work will always pay, in relation to where the welfare cap is

in relation to employment. We are only judging Theresa May, the Prime

Minister, by the yardstick she has set herself. We will see what the

Autumn Statement is, we will come back to you in a minute. What do you

make of the Prime Minister saying to Jeremy Corbyn, you don't agree in

assessments, you don't agree in sanctions or any limits to welfare,

is it true? It is not true at all and Jeremy Corbyn hasn't said that.

We said if you have a system, it needs to operate fairly. So you do

believe in sanctions? If people consistently break the rules in

relation to benefits and entitlements, then of course. But

they should be a last resort. What we have seen is a plethora of

sanctions to people who shouldn't have been sanctioned and that is why

they end up in situations where they rely on food banks or homeless.

Final thought, Laura? You saw this row between David Cameron and Ed

Miliband, we will see this row over the next years between Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn. Partly because the way the Tories took about this,

you have people on welfare and people who are in work. Most people

on benefits have jobs, so there is a slight either intentional

misunderstanding or a fundamental different worldview. Because they

are the just managing? This may trip Theresa May. She said this is the

party that understands working class people. It is her ambition to place

herself in that sense, but it will have to go a long way to match up

the rhetoric she is hoping to make the centre of her mission, if you

like. We will continue to monitor the rhetoric and the policy.

Penny Mordaunt on the programme said there were no plans to reverse those

cuts, but no plans is not quite the same.

Michael Heseltine said he had no plans to stand against Margaret

Thatcher. What about the Alsatian? That wasn't consulted. Coming back

to Theresa May's comment about Fifa banning the home countries wearing

poppies. Wales face Serbia. The further forbids what it calls

political imagery. Answering a question from the Labour MP Steve

McCabe during PMQs, Theresa May said the flesh should think again. I

think the stand is being taken by Fifa is outrageous. Our football

players have won to recognise and respect those who have given their

lives for our safety and security. It is absolutely right they should

be able to do so and it is for our football associations, but a clear

message is going from this house. We want our players to wear those

poppies. I have to say to Fifa, before they tell us what to do, they

jolly well should sort their own house out. We are joined by the

associate editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin Maguire. She is right,

isn't she? This is a rerun of an argument five years ago when a

compromise was reached that England players will wear a black armband

with poppies on it. But the reason it has breached the rules, the

commercial symbols, we see the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, others

will see it differently. If you allow something, let's remember they

raise money for serving soldiers, not just of those from previous

wars. But what about the red Army benevolent fund wants to be on the

Russian shirt or the People's Army of China in North Korea or they want

an anti-Israeli slogan of the Revolutionary guards in Iran want to

have a go at Iraq. You open the door and lots of people will be calling

for symbols that we would find offensive. But remembering the war

dead, is it the same as a political statement? It is a political side to

any war and the money is raised for serving troops now, including those

who fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, two hugely controversial conflicts

around the world. It is ridiculous we have a clear symbol where we

remember our war dead, remembering those who have given their lives in

service of their country and we have a situation where there is

precedent, other sports are allow this and Fifa are standing in the

way of this. I don't understand why they are taking this stance and it

is so ridiculous. If Fifa said yes to everybody would be adorned in all

sorts of political symbols that would be more controversial? I think

Fifa should keep out of it, and I agree with Theresa May. Fifa should

look at their corruption and people dying building stadiums for the next

World Cup. I have been watching football the decades, I have got the

grey hair. But the truth is, in England, clubs never used to put the

poppy on their shirts. This only started a few years ago. You would

have great anniversaries for the First World War, Second World War,

they didn't have Fifa. Then all of a sudden, a football game, awash with

money and a terrible image, has latched onto the poppy to show it

cares. Should they were the poppy? Absolutely I think they should. Do

you advise them to wear it and get the fine? I suppose then they can

give somebody else another bong. They are not going to kick the

country out of a competition or deduct points, so I presume it is a

fine. Would it open the floodgates to other countries? All of a sudden

we would find ourselves are objecting to symbols on other

country's shirts. Thank you for joining us today on the subject of

poppies. There's just time to put you out

of your misery and give You press the button, Jo.

Congratulations, Roger. He writes great songs. No, that is his

brother. BBC One news coming up. Jo and I

will be here tomorrow with more of the Daily Politics. Love to see you

then. Goodbye. He's a scientist,

brilliant apparently. But you may be bringing people over

here who did things during the war. I will not work for you. I will not

work for the British Government. Let us not let the past haunt

all of our actions. You've got to do something!

It's only you that can!