18/08/2014 Newsnight

Britain is not going to be getting involved in another war in iraq,

we're not putting boots on the ground.

But is the line between what we will and won't do shifting every day?

Despite what David Cameron says, are we back on the road to Iraq?

Tomorrow the Government is ramping up its riots-inspired programme to

It wants to "turn around" another 400,000 of them, but is the

Government expanding a programme without proof that it works?

The National Guard is on the streets of Ferguson Missouri.

Is this a divide that can ever be healed?

We'll ask the American philosopher Cornell West.

Hail the conquering heroes. I will ask Maggie Alphonsi, from the

triumphant England's women's rugby team if it's time they turned pro

like the men. Good evening. David Cameron has

spoken in the most vehement terms about the crisis in Iraq saying that

we are in the middle of a generational struggle against a

poisonous and extremist ideology. If IS is not stopped they could push to

the Mediterranean and to Turkey. That apocalyptic vision does not

appear to be matched by a vision of what British military forces should

do. The Defence Secretary indicated that the role of the British

military had moved beyond a humanitarian task, but to what? Is

the Prime Minister acting decisively or re-acting day by day? British

lives and reputations were lost in Iraq. David Cameron won't be the one

to argue for another military intervention, but our response is

now much more than helping save lives in danger. The Prime

Minister's adamant it doesn't mean troops. Britain is not going to get

involved in another war in Iraq. We're not going to be putting boots

on the ground. Wire not going to be sending in -- we're not going to be

sending in the British Armiment we should -- army. We should use our

diplomacy, the military prowess and expertise we have to help others, we

should use these things as part of a strategy to put pressure on Islamic

State and make sure this terrorist organisation is properly addressed.

Note, he said: We will use our military prowess. Curdish fighters

have been fighting with extremists at the Mosul dam. Control of vital

power and water, they claim now back in their hands. In turn, our fighter

jets have been flying to provide intelligence to the Americans.

Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the rest of the Government is

staying out of it. UK warplanes are already flying over parts of Iraq.

We've offered to give weapons to curds in the north -- Kurds in the

north. Special forces are thought to be in the country already. The

Kurdish leadership has told visiting British MPs they want help with

training their troops. When you hear this description of the frontline,

it's clear why. One division would work for one party. Another for

another political party. Division would be part of the intelligence

department, another one would be part of the police force. One is

Special Forces. Those divisions are not coordinating. That's been part

of the problem. Part this afternoon coordination -- part of that

coordination and training of the Army is certainly in what I would

say, in the medium and longer term, absolutely required. Training

moderates to take on the horror of Islamic State has not been discussed

by Number Ten yet. Sources deny there's been a shift in their wider

position. They say Britain will deal with these extremists and their

terrible ambitions, not with direct combat, instead, what they describe

as an approach that's primarily humanitarian with military

assistance. Could that also be known as keeping their options open? In

using humanitarian assistance to justify Britain's early involvement

when it was clear in a war zone, any humanitarian action always entails

the possibility of combat, first, and second, that the threat poled by

ISIS, a threat that the Prime Minister himself had been

undercorpsing for many months was more than a humanitarian issue --

underscoring. The Prime Minister believes British Governments will

have to deal with Islamic State for generations. Although his foreign

policy ambitions have already been held back by history. This time last

year, defence planners were considering different but direct

action. The Prime Minister argued for intervention against President

Assad. He lost the vote that would have backed it in the Mondays. At

that -- in the Commons. At that moment, foreign policy, in part

because of the shadow of what happened in Iraq ten years before. A

shadow that perhaps looms larger now. Tonight David Cameron made

phone calls to leaders around the Middle East, trying to confront

together a more brutal enemy with regional ambition. While the

problems presented by Islamic State are more and more acute, the

political traps at home of taking action are just as wide.

Here with me now are Fraser Nelson, Editor of the Spectator, and

First of all, Laura alluded to the shadow of Iraq and the shadow of

Syria, do you get the sense that David Cameron is at sea over exactly

how to approach this? I think if there's a tension between his

instincts, he's talking in Churchillian terms of a generational

struggle to defeat ISIS, but not militarily, we're not sending in the

Army. Anybody will think - which is it? We saw him saying we're not

going to get involved in another Iraq war. This afternoon he sent a

geoforce out there. And it's quite a terrifying thought, this idea that

we're facing this for a exwren rags -- generation. He marches up to the

top of the hill, but there isn't any clamour for debate. MPs don't

actually know what they'll be debating. That's right. It's

disappointing there isn't more clamour. British foreign policy

achanging before our eyes here. If Parliament can be recalled to

express condolences on the Queen mum's death, then you can discuss

something as big as this. Should Parliament be recalled? Not quite

yet. Not yet? We haven't actually taken any military action. As soon

as we start thinking about military action, yes. But we're doing

humanitarian action at the moment. But, at the weekend, the Defence

Secretary said it wasn't just humanitarian He's talking action.

About arming the Peshmerga. I don't see a great requirement for

Parliament here. It may well be, but not quite yet. You see, I agree with

Fraser up to a point. I don't agree that we know exactly what's

happening. If you're going to have a strategy, you've got to have

something to rat Is on. We -- strategis E.On. At what point do you

make a decision on whether or not you will take military action along

with the Americans? You don't know that point. You speak from

experience. My experience is, look, I went sent to Bosnia. I didn't even

have a mission for three months. There was no strategy or end game.

Is there Is that a good way to carry on? We know that civilians are being

attacked. Does it not make us look incredibly weak that we seem to be

didge snerg It's a very odd thing to do, to rule out, for example, any

serious military involvement and at the same time, say to I serve, we

hate -- to IS, we hate you, we're out to get you. The Prime Minister

may come to regret ruling these things out. Is he boxing himself

Retorically yes in? . In fairness, the Prime Minister is saying what

everyone feels at the moment. He doesn't want to put, as he says,

boots on the ground. If circumstances change, and our

country is threatened by these people... He seems to suggest that

Britain is being threatened. Threatened on the borders of knave

toe, being threatened here if IS fighters come here for terrorism.

That's in prospect. It's not there yet. I think that in the end, the

Prime Minister will have to make a decision in the national interest.

The national interest, fundamentally is the defence of our country. Yes,

but then what you might have is a situation like 7/7. Only when

something like that happens do we galvanise ourselves into action for

what is happening abroad. The public aren't prepared to do very much.

There'll be a hell of a row if we suddenly started talking about

military forces into northern Iraq. The public aren't up for it. Is that

because Iraq was such a mistake? Yes. My constituents are contacting

me and they're saying, we've got to do more than humanitarian aid. I

say, what would you mean by that? You imply military action and then

there's silence. If you talk about IS as the Prime Minister does, as

being on the shores of the Mediterranean, spilling into Syria,

you really think the Iraqi Army can take them on? The Iraqi Army, no.

They're basically a rabble at the moment. The Kurdish forces are more

efficient. It's funny that Kurds who we regarded as terrorists recently

are now fighting with the American p air cover -- American air cover. War

can quickly change allegiances. Right now, we've got to work out -

do we support an independent Kurdistan. Yes, and break what

Barack Obama keeps talking about as a united Iraq. Yes, but even tonight

Barack Obama was thanking Iraqi and Kurdish forces, even getting into

the swing of things. Are our enemies going to become our friends? Are we

going to need President Assad, are we even going to need the Iranians?

The answer is inevitably, they will. That's what happens in real life.

Enemies become friends. Friends become enemies. I'm afraid that's

politics. In the Middle East, it's most certainly the case. What are

other of your military, former military compatriots telling you

about this and discussing, what is their view? I haven't really talked

to many people. I've been in France for two weeks. The fact is speaking

from my own position, and my own experience, the one thing I disagree

with is people saying we should have an end game, we should have a

strategy now. We can't. Things are moving far too fast. The Prime

Minister, quite rightly, is doing his best to deal with each day as it

comes. When we have something more stable to think about a strategy,

when the situation stabilises, then perhaps a strategy will Thank you

come. Both very much. "Off the barometer" that's the

description of the problems of many of the troubled families

in the UK given by the boss of the Government programme dedicated

to them - families who are chaotic, drug-abusing jobless,

have mental health issues, The Prime Minister emphasised that

families are the bedrock of society. and that dovetails with tomorrow's

announcement that the Government will ramp up the

Troubled Families Programme from 120,000 families to around half a

million, pointing to a success story for 53,000 families who have been,

the phrase is "turned around". In the aftermath of the 2011 riots,

David Cameron came up with a ?400 million policy to deal with 120,000

trouble-making families. Official Dom might call them families with

multiple disadvantages. Some in the press might call them neighbours

from hell. Whatever you call them, we've known for years that a

relatively small number of families are the source of a large proportion

of problems in our society. As the Prime Minister said in a speech

today, that programme to tackle them, the so-called troubled

families scheme, will take in a further 400,000 families during the

next Parliament. The philosophy of the Troubled Families Programme is

that a stitch in time saves nine. Central Government has asked local

authorities about families with a high propensity for truancy and

worklessness. By focussing resources there, we can solve a lot of

problems all at once. We established the family recovery programme

incorporating our Troubled Families Programme which brought a number of

services together, such as mental health, the police, housing, health,

domestic violence and a few more, substance issues, there are a range

of specialists that can offer multiple services and multiple

interventions for our families. There were 120,000 scheme families

are certainly poor and have social problems, for example, 74% of them

had no-one in work. 42% had been visited by the police in the

previous six months. 29% were suspected of domestic violence.

There are oddities about the programme. For example, why 120,000

families? The 120,000 figure is essentially made up. It originally

comes from a figure of the number of families in severe deprivation, not

families that welcome back troubled, but deprived families. It's been

wrenched out of context and used essentially because the Prime

Minister wanted to make a speech. Now the minister-macro and other

ministers have talked about how the Troubled Families Programme is a

success and that is based on the number of people 's lives who have

been turned around by it. It's worth looking at what they mean when they

sit in and around. On the latest statistics, the scheme has turned

around 53,000 families. But of all these, only 4500 have been turned

around because a member of the family could sustain work, remaining

are deemed turned around because of other criteria, for example their

children may have got three suspensions in a year, truancy rate

of less than 15% and the family may have reduced its anti-social

behaviour and offending. So families and offending. So families of school

a week gets suspended twice in a year and are deemed to be turned

around. Clearly when families improve on these outcomes, it is

genuine improvement, but it is absurd to suggest that because the

child of the family is true in things slightly less, but it means

the family has been turned around permanently. The measures don't

address real problems such as domestic violence, and families

deemed to have been turned around aren't on the back of the scheme

even if things go wrong. So it's a bit early to claim that the scheme

is a success. I'm joined by the director general of the Troubled

Families Programme. It is a gargantuan task, did you think it

would be as tough? Yes, I did. I started work in this area many years

go and when the government had they wanted to do this, I knew it was

going to be extremely ambitious. You have got 120 to nearly half a

million, and on that figure of 53,000, only 4500 have found

implement, continuous employment after six months. -- have found

employment. These families are probably the furthest away from the

job market than any. But 4500 out of 53,000 that are deemed to have been

turned around. It is about 10%, in the scheme of things, when you

consider how problematic these families are, layered upon domestic

violence, crime, anti-social behaviour, extremely significant

health problems, we're talking about families which have often never

worked and their parents have never worked. But you have only got under

5000 out of 53,000 into work. I am not saying that's... They are deemed

to have been turned around, because it's not a question of the family

having no suspensions, no offending among miners, and no social

behaviour, it is 60% reduction, three exclusions maximum and an

offending reduction. They are off the programme, isn't that scary? The

first thing to say is, of those who have been turned around, nobody

should underestimate the extraordinary distance those

families have travel. You said yourself that it is gargantuan,

extremely ambitious, they are large families, as we know from the study

we have done, and all of the children, every member of that

family, the reduction has to be by 60% and they had to reduce crime by

30 and they have two get the kid into school. He said they had turned

around, it would seem to me they are just turning around, rather than

saying, tick the box, you are off the scheming to can't get back on

it. People are putting words into mouse here. I am clear that just

because a family has made these very significant moves in the right

direction, doesn't mean to say all the problems are over and everything

is perfect. Why can't face day in the scheme? -- they stay. They get

specialist help? For as long as they needed. There are many families with

the local authorities have claimed their results payment for and they

continue to work with those families. The woman you interviewed

earlier is in that situation. But if you have 53 families who are turning

around, but completely turned around, and are still on the books,

you are moving from a base rate of only managing it was half of 120,000

families, to taking on half a million families. Is there not a

danger you are completely tolerating this, wouldn't it be better to stick

with the families, see them through finally rather than getting more

money... I don't think it is. The thing that is interesting about this

programme is that everybody knows these families have dominated our

public services for years. We need to render that there are hundreds of

different organisations circling around these families and not fixing

them. The difference with this programme is that you have one

worker that completely grips the family and grips all members of it.

You can argue about semantics till the cows come home... Turned around

means they are off the books. It doesn't mean they are off the books.

There's a difference between when a local authority says we have moved

them this far and it's time to make a results claim... Which is a

financial claim. If you get all of the children back into school for

three consecutive terms, almost 12 months, it is a huge movement in the

right direction. You are saying 5000 families isn't a lot to get them

into work, it's an amazing achievement to get these families

into work when you know the background to them. The study I

published a couple of weeks ago showed they had an average of nine

huge problems. Including domestic violence, that doesn't come up in

the scheme. Let me just put it to you that you are talking about being

able to deliver this sort of service on cash-strapped councils with

nearly half a million families. Aren't you building hugely false

expectations of what you can achieve in five years? The most

extraordinary story here is that public services, local authorities

in particular, have gripped this programme, it is they who have said

they want to help more families, get children younger, had earlier

intervention, they are the power behind us to extend this programme.

The matter what anybody says, those families have changed significantly

and can only be a good thing in today. Thank you very much.

This came after the governor of Missouri signed an order

for the National Guard to quell the escalating protests.

The situation remains press after night. These are the scenes that

printed the calling in the US National Guard. The night-time

curfew, intended to quell unrest, has now ended but the fatal police

shooting of an unarmed black teenager more than a week ago, that

a the violent protest last night. Police used tear gas and rubber

bullets as the violence escalated. An initial autopsy found he had been

shot but the police did not disclose how many times. Today a private

autopsy commissioned by the family revealed he was shot at least six

times, including twice in the head, and suggested he was killed while

trying to surrender. The army said mobile part of your body, so it

could have occurred when he was putting his hands up -- the arm is a

mobile part. It could have happened if he put his arms across the

defensive manner, we don't know. His family are calling for the rest of

the officer involved. What is justice to you? Being fair.

Arresting this man, and making him accountable for his actions. This

evening President Obama highlighted the plight for some young black men

in parts of the US. You have young men of colour in many communities

who are more likely to end up in jail or in the criminal justice

system than they are in a good job or in college. Part of my job, that

I can to without any potential conflicts, is to get at those root

causes. Michael Brown's death has sparked days of clashes between

protesters and police. Authorities in the back row will be watching to

see with the end of the curfew will curb or escalate the protests. First

of all, do you think this is a pivotal moment for America? There is

no doubt that once again, we have to deal with the vicious legacy of

white supremacy, once again we have to raise the question. If our dear

brother Michael Brown, were a precious white youths or a precious

Jewish youth, would the president, Congress, legal system, respond in

the same way as being a precious black brother in Ferguson? I think

we know the answer. The American system is an abysmal failure when it

comes to keeping track of the humanity of black poor youth. Is

there a deep mistrust now among young black youth in America of what

hand has been dealt them? It is generational. In my generation, we

are the distrust of the police because of arbitrary police power,

because of a deeply racist legal system, saying is true for this new

generation. We have lost three waves of young, poor youth with a bogus

war against drugs that generated unbelievable expansion of the new

Jim Crow, callousness, indifference, has been the response of

presidents, Congress, and think about the hypocrisy here. Recently

the president said, were tortured some folks but they were real

patriots, they were dealing with anguish, but here we have young

people upset because they rightly see a murder taking place. And he

has to be the manner of law and order. It's not law and order when

it comes to torture. But it's law and order now and it comes to poor

black people. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. You were just talking

about President Obama, do you think his response has been sufficient to

the task in terms of, what do you think of the assessment of the way

he has behaved since the death of Michael Brown? I think his words

reek of political calculation, rather than moral conviction. Keep

in mind that he put out a statement for the death of Robin Williams, who

was at comic genius, before he put out a statement on Michael Brown.

The family asked for an autopsy, they hesitated, they had to get

their own autopsy. Now we know of the six shots, of the head being...

But the grief is overwhelming. But does that excuse... It is disgusting

to have a black president unable to keep track of what is going on with

the young black youth. The grief and anger is understandable but does

that excuse looting? Why should they go together? No, no. I am not

justifying looting. That's wrong, that's wrong. We have to be honest

about calling out what is wrong, but the most important thing is, if in

fact there was a semblance of a just process, a semblance of

transparency, you wouldn't have the young brothers and sisters throw in

the Molotov cocktails because they would recognise. Another is pleading

to have her precious baby, who had been murdered, to have the person at

least arrested so we can begin a fair trial, and she can't get that,

in America, 2014! You are one black leader. What do you think the Black

leadership in America should be doing now? Do you think the black

leadership in America now it's wanting? I am not a black leader, I

am a lover of black people, I am not a leader. I try and tell the truth

about the suffering of poor black people in general, but what we need

now is quality leadership on every level. We don't need the same

everyday folk coming through with the market branding, the names and

photo opportunities. We need local grassroots leaders who have

integrity, and the sad thing is we have such low qwerty black

leadership in America so you get a certain distance from what is

actually happening on the ground, in terms of not just being there but

following room. We have people who have been apologists for the

President Obama administration who every event, come through, was their

justice for Trayvon Martin? Absolutely not. We can go across the

board. We need leadership, especially grassroots, with

integrity. That brings us to the great legacy of Martin Luther King

and the others. And no, this isn't another question

about the Scottish referendum - 95% of Britons think that to

be considered truly British you Yet there are almost

a million people in these islands Newsnight has had first sight

of their report which calls for a complete overhaul

of the Government's language Jim Reed has been finding

out what it's like to live My name is Beatrice. I'm happy to

have this class and teach you this morning. We used to make small talk

about the weather. Now, in this English class, the modern-day

equivalent. Where do you usually go shopping? What about Morrisons? This

couple are from west Africa. He came here from a Portuguese passport to

stack shelves at Tesco. He's just joined this beginners' class. How

old are your children? The boy is 11. The girl is four. Do they speak

English? Yes. As their first language? Yes. They speak English

better than Portuguese? Yeah. How difficult is that as a family? Yeah,

sometimes, some word, they don't understand what they said in my

language. I don't know how to explain them, how, erm...... How do

you get the word. Them say, it is Through your difficult. Relationship

with your daughter, if you can't speak the same language, is that a

problem? Which shop is your favourite shop?

Four million in the UK now live in households where English is not the

main language. Some, like this woman from Egypt, have been living here

for decades without speaking it well. You've been here 25 years, in

this country, why just start to learn English now? Why not before

now? Before because I working, I send money for my family in Egypt.

Now everyone is married from my brother's children and my mum she

passed away. I'm looking for myself. Do you wish you'd started earlier? I

wish. How do we get to the situation where some of the people in your

class have lived here for 20, 30 years even and cannot speak English?

I know, it's absolutely amazing. I do some registration myself and I

say, you've been here 25 years, why haven't you come to learn before?

People have come straight into work. They've got a job in a cafe or a

restaurant, as a chef, and they - They haven't needed language skills

in that situation? Their priority was to get work so they could

survive, basically. The most popular English language course is free to

those on out of work benefits. The rest pay up to ?1,000 a year. A

report out tomorrow criticises Labour for wasting money on the

scheme and then the coalition for cutting funding significantly in

England, leading to a big drop in student numbers. 850,000 people in

this country can't speak English well or can't speak English at all.

That's completely unacceptable. Just to compare that with the number of

people who are on these courses, in the main programme, which isn't

everybody, there are 150,000. You can see, there's a very big gap

between needs and needs that are being met. Of those 850,000, they

might not all want to learn English. That's absolutely right. They might

not want to. Nonetheless there are about 80% of colleges that provide

these courses report long waiting lists of up to a thousand potential

students. These two are charging down this slide, in part because of

Joanna lumly, the actress led the campaign to give Gurkhas the right

to live in the UK. This former soldier and his wife left Nepal to

start a new life here. Laksmi came here with basic English. After her

course, three years later, she might not be fluent, but she's not far off

it. It makes it very, very hard, when you don't understand their

language. And when you are even like alone, among strangers, it is very,

very hard and I felt like I'm confined, I'm in a jail. The report

out tomorrow argues we need to make the process simpler. Immigrants

could be offered loans to cover course fees or told to buy language

lessons as a condition of entry. She's now planning to retrain and go

back to work with her new English skills. After learning English for

three years, I believe that I'm able to speak, I'm able to express my

feeling and I have gained some skills as well. I have planned to do

accounting course from September. I think there's a big jump from three

years ago and now. Do you find you're getting better and better?

I'm getting better. I'm getting better than before, when I was first

in Have you England. Leapfrogged your husband, do you think your

speaking is better than his? Are you competitive about it? Yes, of

course, I'm better than him now. The Government says it has now

tightened the rules for non-EU migrants and a basic language test

is now part of the residency exam. It says Government funding must be

targeted at those whose poor English is stopping them getting into

employment. I was chef nearly 35 years... In the class in west

London, Galia came here to work as a chef in the Ritz Hotel. She never

left. It took her 20 years to start learning English, encouraged by

surprising role models. He's crazy like me. You like this man? I love

it. I love this man. The kind of integration then, the one half of

the coalition would dearly love to see. Immigration is likely to drive

up our population over the next 20 years. Whether those new entrants

will be told to or even be able to speak English, that could make a big

difference to British society. David lamby is in the studio and in

Birmingham the Conservative special advisor on youth and crime Sean

Bailey. Do you think it's acceptable that more than 850,000 people in

this country can't speak useable English? I don't believe you can

build cohesive communities if people can't communicate. But whose

responsibility is it? One of the points in the report is if

immigrants are going to come to this country immigrants learning English

would be part of the package of making sure they pass the test to

come into the country. That's key. Because who takes the responsibility

for paying the bills? There has to be some respect for the communities

that are already here, taxpayers, who will have to cover that cost.

You believe it's the immigrants themselves who should shoulder the

cost? For sure. One way to look at it is to say you're effectively

asking British citizens to shoulder the cost of other people's

immigration. We have a very generous system as it is with our NHS and the

rest of that, this will add to that bill. That will be a hard sell for

the public. There has to be some respect for the people who cover the

bills. What he's saying as to society cohesion, if people can

speak English together rather than be isolated within their own home or

within their own family, do you see a difference between asylum seekers

and economic migrants. There's two things, what Sean says is fatuous.

Asylum seekers are coming from places like Somalia, we see the

problems in Iraq. Many will arrive over coming years. These are

vulnerable people. Often not very literate in their own languages. Of

course the state has to find language courses for them so that

they can get into the employment market. Many are women, like that

woman you saw, 20 years she's not been able to speak She was English.

Wonderful, delight ever, but she had a job from the moment she arrived

here. Surely, you wouldn't think it was incumbent upon her to learn

English? Yes and employers have to play a bigger role in that. You need

courses in churches, in mosques, in community groups. 40% of this

funding has been cut, gone, over the last five years. The criticism was

that Labour frittered it and didn't use proper programmes. The budget

trebled under Labour. We got more people into work under Labour. It

was a good thing. We now have hundreds of thousands of people

sitting at home, unable to enter the job market because they cannot speak

English. Hold on, you've conflated two things. You are talking about

immigration versus asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are very different.

If the Government invites someone here for whatever reason that's

going on in the world, we take some responsibility for them. If you're

an economic migrant, you have to cover your own bill. You can't

charge your immigration to my tax bill. That's ridiculous. A lot of

the economic migrants who come do pay taxes. Yeah, but before they get

into the country, they should be able to say that they will cover the

cost. What do you mean, before they get into the country? You can't

expect them to get here and not speak English. They won't One in

survive. Three are coming within the European Union. They're coming from

Poland. They're coming from France. They're coming from Spain. They have

free movement. What requirement? You can't. Just like when you go to

France... Hang on a minute, do we need to change all that? I'm sure

Sean will say we should pull out of Europe. Don't put words in my mouth.

I've never said no such thing. Should free movement include that

you can show you can speak basic English. If we say that you can

speak basic French and basic Spanish. Perhaps. It's not currently

the system. Do you thi it's reasonable, we have a cash-strapped

NHS. In 2012, in England, there was ?23 million paid for translations

for people within the NHS, do you think that is acceptable? There is a

question about the translation bill, particularly, I think in a library.

But I've got to say that the cost for people not being able to

navigate English is far greater in the NHS. You do need people. You

pick up that bill, if you're socially excluded and you can't

access medicine. Far greater cost to the planning. You can't just wait

for people to arrive. Sean Bailey, finally, we know that the waiting

list for these courses is huge. If you're going to resolve this in the

short-term, what has to be Separate out done? The people who we as

taxpayers are responsible for, because they're coming here for a

particular reason, and who is an economic migrant. If you migrate to

a country, your education, your ability to communicate, surely that

bill rests with you. You have to have some respect for the people who

pay the bills. There's lots of things in this country that

communities need. To ask them to pay for other people's bills seems to be

pushing it. Thank you both. The triumphant England Women's Rugby

team arrived home from Paris today, after beating Canada in the

World Cup final. Their decisive 21-9 win,

in front of the sold-out stadium, and two million people watching

on television, shows just how much of a revolution has taken place in

the sport since women first played, But for the women, all amateurs,

there's none of the glamour of sponsorship, fees,

and big club deals It's back to the day jobs

for the squad. Maggie Alphonsi, one of those

players is here. Many congratulations. You must be on

cloud nine. I'm over the moon. I can't believe it's actually

happened. What a fantastic result to come away with a Gold Medal, after

years of hard work. It's brilliant. Do you thi that the result of your

win, of course, England has won before, but 20 years ago, do you

think the result this afternoon win will be to ramp up both the interest

in women's rugby, but also the desire to take it another stage?

Definitely. I think now the fact that we've won the World Cup in our

own country has made us think we can get more women involved in the

sport. We had the World Cup in 2010 and there was a lot of attention. In

2014 in France, the media coverage was fantastic. We got a lot more

people who wanted to get involved in the women's game, but have never

seen women's rugby before and are interested in it. For a long time,

the television stations wouldn't take women's rugby. When you

actually see the game, you see how extraordinarily talented,

professional and everything else, where go back to your day jobs? It's

one of the things where I started playing at 13 years old. There

wasn't a lot for women's rugby. We played rugby. We didn't get a lot of

attention on tfr or media articles. Over the last 15 years, I've seen

rot depression change so much. It was slow, though. You have to see

that it is frustrating. It is going to take time. Look at women's

football now. What's pleasing about rugby is we're get thering. The men

get paid fees for winning, fees for taking part, going back to the club,

amazing sponsorship. You would think that people would be jumping to

spoonor women's rugbiment Now we've won it. Who knows what will happen

from here. I think it will only get better from now on. Do you think

that every single club should have women's rugby within the club?

Definitely. More girls are getting involved in the Do you sport. Think

because of this win, the same way there's always a bounce from

different sports, that actually, you talked about taking up rugby at 13,

that actually there will be in schools, for young women, rugby.

There is still a prejudice against it in some schools. It's growing

already. I've been looking at social media and the amount of Twitter

comments from positive people interested in getting involved in

the women's game, young girls, you know, women wanting to be part of

it, that's positive. It's Gowing -- it's only going to get better. Is it

a big celebration for everybody? We have been celebrating. But the focus

is the next World Cup in three Thank you years. Very much.

James Alexander Wilson has died. He read the classified football results

on BBC Radio for 40 years before stepping down last year. He was

famous for his distinctive style, especially altering his tone of

voice to indicate whether a result was home or away win or a draw. We

leave you the explanation of the method in his own words. I always

try to make the five minutes really interesting for the listener. Of

course, the best way to do it is to get the inflection right, obviously,

which I hope I do. And for instance, if Arsenal have lost, well, I'm

sorry for them. If Manchester United have won, I'm happy for them. So it

would go something like this. Arsenal one, Manchester United 2.

And so on and so forth. Simple as that.

A fresh start in the morning, plenty of showers over north-west England

and parts of Wales. We are left with a scattering of showers for the

afternoon, sunny spells as well but it won't feel warm. Generally it

will stay dry in the central belt of Scotland. Temperatures in some cases

may not even get to 13. After a wet start in Greater Manchester,