:00:36. > :00:40.catch up with the weather. the Good afternoon and welcome to the Daily
:00:41. > :00:43.Politics. MPs are debating the Immigration Bill, but for many
:00:44. > :00:50.Conservative MPs it's just not tough enough. Will the Government's
:00:51. > :00:53.concessions be enough to head off the rebels, and why are so many
:00:54. > :00:58.Tories unhappy with their own party's policies on migration. Is it
:00:59. > :01:02.OK to light up with the kids in the back seat? The days of smoking
:01:03. > :01:05.behind the wheel of the family car could be numbered after a surprise
:01:06. > :01:10.victory in the House of Lords. Will MPs back the ban? Labour is calling
:01:11. > :01:14.on the Government to apologise over the miners' strike. Is there a case
:01:15. > :01:20.to answer, and is it wise to relive the political battles of the past?
:01:21. > :01:26.And, is David Cameron Scottish? Is Vince Cable a doctor? And is Theresa
:01:27. > :01:29.May turning into a supermodel? We'll look at the things people really
:01:30. > :01:34.want to know about their politicians.
:01:35. > :01:39.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole programme today is
:01:40. > :01:42.Kier Starmer, he's a defence barrister specialising in human
:01:43. > :01:49.rights and was Director of Public Prosecutions until last year. And if
:01:50. > :01:53.you have any thoughts or comments on anything we're discussing then you
:01:54. > :01:58.can send them to us or tweet your comments.
:01:59. > :02:03.Let's start with news that the military is being sent into the
:02:04. > :02:06.flood-hit county of Somerset. Military planners have met council
:02:07. > :02:09.officials to see what support is needed, and the Environment
:02:10. > :02:11.Secretary, Owen Paterson, has said amphibious vehicles could be
:02:12. > :02:17.deployed within 24 hours to help flood victims.
:02:18. > :02:21.Met Office statistics show that the southeast and central southern
:02:22. > :02:28.England has already suffered its wettest January since records began
:02:29. > :02:37.in 1910. Some villages have been cut off for almost a month. More rain is
:02:38. > :02:41.thought to be on the way. The pictures are unbelievable, looking
:02:42. > :02:46.up parts of the country that are cut off, you have to get votes to reach
:02:47. > :02:50.people or for people to get to school. Is it the governments fault
:02:51. > :02:57.that in an area which very susceptible to flooding, is it their
:02:58. > :03:03.fault that not more has been done? Anything I say Mass be taken with a
:03:04. > :03:07.pinch of salt. It is the wettest January for over 100 years. I cannot
:03:08. > :03:11.help thinking some of this could have been done a little earlier. I
:03:12. > :03:17.feel very sorry for people who have been cut off. Critics have said, had
:03:18. > :03:22.this been in Notting Hill and that area had been made and Ireland, do
:03:23. > :03:25.you think because there is so much focus on London, perhaps the
:03:26. > :03:31.military would have been brought in quicker? There does appear to be
:03:32. > :03:37.more focus on London but I do not know the background. We did know the
:03:38. > :03:41.weather was coming. I am not sure anything more could have been done
:03:42. > :03:46.quicker. Now it's time for our daily quiz. In an interview with Steve
:03:47. > :04:00.Wright on Radio 2 the Prime Minister was asked which reality TV show he
:04:01. > :04:04.would rather go on. So which of the reality shows did he pick? Was it...
:04:05. > :04:08.A) Strictly Come Dancing, b) The Great British Bake Off, c) I'm A
:04:09. > :04:14.Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, or d) Splash? At the end of the show, Keir
:04:15. > :04:19.will give us the correct answer. You have plenty of time to think about
:04:20. > :04:21.it. Now, last year, three men were caught taking tomatoes, mushrooms,
:04:22. > :04:24.cheese and cakes from the dustbins behind a branch of the supermarket
:04:25. > :04:28.Iceland. Sounds like they were planning on an omelette and pudding
:04:29. > :04:32.for dinner. But they were arrested as they left with the food, and
:04:33. > :04:34.charged under the 1824 Vagrancy Act. The Crown Prosecution Service said
:04:35. > :04:37.there was significant public interest in prosecuting the men, but
:04:38. > :04:42.yesterday after a public outcry on the internet decided to drop the
:04:43. > :04:46.case. Well, our guest of the day was head of the CPS. We're also joined
:04:47. > :04:55.by the lawyer representing one of the men known on social media as the
:04:56. > :05:01.Iceland three, Mike Schwarz. Welcome to the programme. Was it really
:05:02. > :05:07.worth trying to bring a case against these men? It seems to be sensible
:05:08. > :05:12.to drop the case. The important thing to appreciate is there are
:05:13. > :05:16.hundreds of thousands of decisions that the CPS has two make every
:05:17. > :05:21.year. Sometimes they get it wrong. It looks to me this is one that
:05:22. > :05:26.should not really have been brought. The good thing is, they've reviewed
:05:27. > :05:33.it and dropped it. I think that is a good way to operate. Any
:05:34. > :05:38.organisation will make mistakes. The real test is, do you put right a
:05:39. > :05:44.wrong decision? You are obviously pleased about that decision. They
:05:45. > :05:51.said they were going to prosecute under the Vagrancy Act. I suppose it
:05:52. > :05:55.is a crime. Their defence was they were not acting dishonestly. The
:05:56. > :05:59.suggestion was they were going to steal food. They said this was food
:06:00. > :06:06.that had been thrown away, that was going to waste. It had been frozen
:06:07. > :06:11.and was thawing out. They needed it to feed themselves so they were not
:06:12. > :06:17.acting dishonestly. On the question of the process, yes, it is right for
:06:18. > :06:22.the CPS to review the case. We asked them to review it. There were
:06:23. > :06:26.significant public interest. It was only in the last 24 hours that the
:06:27. > :06:32.case was dropped, simply because of the media and public outcry about
:06:33. > :06:36.the case. Not because of their own internal processes and review, as
:06:37. > :06:40.you were suggesting. Is it now being left to the public to be judge and
:06:41. > :06:48.jury in deciding whether certain things are prosecuted? I do not know
:06:49. > :06:53.the precise details. Cases ought to be under continual review. Sometimes
:06:54. > :06:57.they are reviewed because the lawyer spots something that means the case
:06:58. > :06:59.should not go ahead and sometimes it is because somebody has made a
:07:00. > :07:08.representation. It is kept under review. The important thing is, is
:07:09. > :07:15.it an organisation that, when it recognises a case should be brought,
:07:16. > :07:19.stops that case and reviews it? It does not get everything right all
:07:20. > :07:23.the time but it is a big thing when an organisation says, actually, this
:07:24. > :07:28.case on balance should not have been brought and we will drop the case.
:07:29. > :07:35.It was a nice glass for the CPS and for Iceland. There was a public vote
:07:36. > :07:40.to get these defendants out of court. The PR machines within
:07:41. > :07:46.Iceland, and one has to say within the CPS as well, got moving once
:07:47. > :07:52.they saw a report in the Guardian and accelerated media and twitter
:07:53. > :07:59.campaign against this. As a result, it appears the chief executive of
:08:00. > :08:03.Iceland got on the phone literature literally or figuratively and said,
:08:04. > :08:17.dropped the case because it is doing us tremendous damage. The CPS had a
:08:18. > :08:25.statement on file. Nothing in terms of evidence changed. It rather
:08:26. > :08:30.exposes the CPS? I do not know the precise details of what has gone on.
:08:31. > :08:34.I will speak generally. However a case is brought up for review, it is
:08:35. > :08:38.a good thing if it is reviewed and dropped when it should be dropped.
:08:39. > :08:44.Usually, when that happens, you can say it should happen more quickly.
:08:45. > :08:52.It was not as a result of the review, only as pressure from
:08:53. > :08:56.outside. Very often it is due to pressure from outside. People can
:08:57. > :09:01.ask for a case to be reviewed. That is not unusual and it is sensible.
:09:02. > :09:03.We learned this week that for the first time since before the crash,
:09:04. > :09:08.according to one poll, immigration is the number one issue for the
:09:09. > :09:10.public ahead of the economy. And it is certainly top of the agenda at
:09:11. > :09:14.Westminster today, as the Immigration Bill is back in the
:09:15. > :09:17.Commons. The main thrust of the bill, which has widespread support,
:09:18. > :09:19.will make it easier to deport foreign criminals, introduce new
:09:20. > :09:26.checks on immigrants' legal status, and take steps to cut back on what's
:09:27. > :09:29.known as benefits tourism. But the Government's facing a possibly
:09:30. > :09:33.rebellion as many Tory MPs push for a ban on foreign criminals using
:09:34. > :09:44.European human rights law to avoid deportation. Let's go over to our
:09:45. > :09:51.political correspondent, Norman Smith. Where does the Government
:09:52. > :09:54.stand with its bill? Mr Cameron is facing another major showdown with
:09:55. > :09:59.backbenchers over our old friend, Europe. You might think, what on
:10:00. > :10:04.earth does this have to do with the immigration bill? A couple of
:10:05. > :10:14.critical amendments have been tabled. One would restrict the
:10:15. > :10:18.rights of foreign prisoners to use European human rights legislation to
:10:19. > :10:22.avoid being deported. Another imposes restrictions on Romanians
:10:23. > :10:27.and Bulgarians coming to the UK. What I find extraordinary is that
:10:28. > :10:31.this morning we had the former Tory leader going on the wireless
:10:32. > :10:38.saying, we have to stop these rebellions. It is damaging the party
:10:39. > :10:42.and it is damaging unity. We had one leading rebels saying, I am not
:10:43. > :10:46.going to be joining the rebels. We need to get out of this habit. We
:10:47. > :10:52.are too close to a general election. Despite that, we seem on
:10:53. > :10:56.course to two very sizeable and significant revolts over Europe this
:10:57. > :11:03.afternoon. A number of rebels are blaming the Government for trying to
:11:04. > :11:09.use parliamentary shenanigans and tactics to try to talk out
:11:10. > :11:14.amendments that many Tory MPs would like to have tabled. There is no
:11:15. > :11:17.doubt government did try parliamentary gamesmanship to find
:11:18. > :11:31.various means of ensuring these votes could be avoided. the speaker
:11:32. > :11:37.decided to select these amendments. More than 100 MPs have signed up to
:11:38. > :11:40.them. He took the view that it was unacceptable, not to allow that sort
:11:41. > :11:47.of issue, with that sort of importance and that sort of backing,
:11:48. > :11:54.to be voted upon. Big rebellions by Tory MPs but not enough to defeat
:11:55. > :11:58.the bill, or... ? We are in a moving situation. I think you will find
:11:59. > :12:03.strenuous efforts are under way to try to find a compromise deal, in
:12:04. > :12:07.particular with this motion restricting the right of foreign
:12:08. > :12:14.prisoners to use human rights legislation. It was interesting that
:12:15. > :12:16.Mr Cameron had an interview with colleagues on local radio this
:12:17. > :12:20.morning which was suddenly cancelled. One can only suspect he
:12:21. > :12:25.has found more pressing business he needs to attend to. They will be
:12:26. > :12:31.working very hard to find a compromise deal to avoid these
:12:32. > :12:36.revolts. Thank you very much. As you have heard, MPs are debating this in
:12:37. > :12:41.the House of commons. Here is Theresa May speaking a few moments
:12:42. > :12:46.ago. This immigration bill is an important bill. It has widespread
:12:47. > :12:51.support outside of this house. It is a bill which will ensure we have
:12:52. > :12:56.greater ability, as a government, to make it harder for people to live
:12:57. > :12:59.here in the United Kingdom illegally and make it easier for asked to
:13:00. > :13:07.remove people who are here illegally, and will also streamline
:13:08. > :13:11.the process we have four appeals. The Home Secretary, Theresa May. And
:13:12. > :13:14.I'm joined now by the Conservative MP, John Baron, the former Home
:13:15. > :13:18.Office minister and Labour MP Meg Hillier, and by UKIP's head of
:13:19. > :13:25.policy Tim Akers. Welcome to all of you. On the amendment from Nigel
:13:26. > :13:30.Mills to reinstate the restrictions to Romanians and Bulgarians to 2019,
:13:31. > :13:35.I understand, it is not going to go through because many people claim it
:13:36. > :13:38.is just illegal. The Government says it is illegal. It is unrealistic and
:13:39. > :13:44.designed to embarrass the Government. It is designed to get a
:13:45. > :13:50.message across. This is not a party political issue. It has been raised
:13:51. > :13:54.for a couple of years. The Government decided to move the
:13:55. > :14:00.debate and vote to after Christmas. That is why it is retrospectively
:14:01. > :14:04.illegal. That is what Parliament is about. The theory of vote would not
:14:05. > :14:07.have stopped missiles going in but it is about sending a message that
:14:08. > :14:16.needs to be understood at the centre. I am not prepared for the
:14:17. > :14:20.bill to fall. I am supporting the bill at third reading. It does move
:14:21. > :14:27.us in the right direction. With all due respects, immigration under
:14:28. > :14:30.Labour was a shambles. The front bench has apologised. It is our duty
:14:31. > :14:38.to try to approve legislation where we can. Is the amendment actually
:14:39. > :14:48.legal? The Government says it is not because of the laws we are signed up
:14:49. > :14:57.to with the European Union? Pretty much everybody sees that and except
:14:58. > :15:02.that. -- accents that. It is accepted it would not be lawful but
:15:03. > :15:09.the purpose is to send a message. There seems to be a consensus that
:15:10. > :15:15.this would not be lawful. Why are you tabling an amendment which is
:15:16. > :15:18.not lawful and could not become law? You are using Parliament and the
:15:19. > :15:23.House of Commons for your own political purposes. That is to send
:15:24. > :15:27.a message that you should be doing outside of the jurisdiction of
:15:28. > :15:33.legislation. The reason is, at the end of the day, Parliament is also
:15:34. > :15:37.about debating issues. Having the opportunity to discuss an issue
:15:38. > :15:43.which, broadly speaking, we have been denied the opportunity properly
:15:44. > :15:46.for a number of years. We have been raising this on the floor of the
:15:47. > :15:51.House and have been wanting a full debate about it. We wanted full
:15:52. > :15:56.discussion about the merits and so forth. It is about sending a
:15:57. > :16:00.message. Let's try to improve things going forward in the way we
:16:01. > :16:03.communicate and address this fundamental issue. Had we addressed
:16:04. > :16:09.it a couple of years ago, it might have been easier to address many of
:16:10. > :16:14.the issues with in it. You are blaming the Government. I am blaming
:16:15. > :16:19.them because we should have... It is not just us on the Conservative
:16:20. > :16:28.benches, opposition is from the Labour benches as well. This is dog
:16:29. > :16:32.whistle politics and a dog whistle bill. A speech is made one day then
:16:33. > :16:37.let's make life tricky for immigrants and the next day a lot of
:16:38. > :16:40.those things are put in. I was on the committee and some of these
:16:41. > :16:44.amendments are needed because it is so badly put together. I am
:16:45. > :16:48.supporting the amendment. As a former Home Office minister I saw
:16:49. > :16:53.some of the challenges there. This is not something which can become
:16:54. > :16:56.law. It is tactics. But it is about sending out a message that actually,
:16:57. > :17:00.we are in parliament to legislate and if we want to change the law,
:17:01. > :17:07.there are better vehicles to do that. To do that at the last minute
:17:08. > :17:10.just goes to show... But you are in favour of toughening up this
:17:11. > :17:14.immigration Bill? You said you are a symmetry on the Dominic Raab
:17:15. > :17:21.amendment which says it is illegal to deport a foreigner if they face
:17:22. > :17:25.torture or death. I do support that. As a Home Office minister I dealt
:17:26. > :17:29.with cases where people had terrible things done to them by somebody who
:17:30. > :17:35.was not British and we could not deport them. It was a real
:17:36. > :17:40.challenge. If I may say, you could argue that that amendment would be
:17:41. > :17:47.illegal as well. It might get tested in the courts. The Dominic Raab
:17:48. > :17:51.amendment throws up other issues. Fundamental human rights are
:17:52. > :17:59.enshrined in human rights act and to exclude a certain category of
:18:00. > :18:03.individuals from human rights is a slippery slope. You next are you
:18:04. > :18:07.going to exclude from which fundamental right? There are real
:18:08. > :18:10.issues. The second matter of principle is we have a judiciary in
:18:11. > :18:13.this country which is widely respected and this is about
:18:14. > :18:18.shackling them and stopping them to justice in the case which is in
:18:19. > :18:26.front of them. I think that is a very odd way to proceed. How is it
:18:27. > :18:29.shackling them? A foreigner convicted of a serious crime,
:18:30. > :18:35.claiming he or she has a right to a family life, do you accept that has
:18:36. > :18:38.been abused in the past as a way of staying in the UK? That claim can be
:18:39. > :18:43.made, and it is for the judge to take into account whether it is
:18:44. > :18:46.right or wrong, that is why we have courts. The mere fact that you make
:18:47. > :18:53.the claim does not mean you stay. The judge looks at the individual
:18:54. > :18:56.case. By and large, measures which stop judges doing justice in
:18:57. > :19:03.individual cases are wrong in principle. Should there be a
:19:04. > :19:07.judicial review? We should be able to have our Parliament decide on our
:19:08. > :19:10.human rights. All this talk, you would never guess there is an
:19:11. > :19:14.election coming up and UKIP are looking good for the European
:19:15. > :19:18.elections and suddenly the Immigration Bill comes. The talk
:19:19. > :19:23.about blocking Romanians and Bulgarians, the government had years
:19:24. > :19:26.to sort this and they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
:19:27. > :19:32.People will look at that as blatant electioneering. Changing this
:19:33. > :19:34.relationship with the European Convention of human rights is
:19:35. > :19:44.non-negotiable under the Lisbon Treaty. It is a take it or leave it
:19:45. > :19:50.then. Or this tinkering does not mean a thing. There are measures
:19:51. > :19:53.which will be put in place. Plans to strip terror suspects of UK
:19:54. > :20:06.citizenship, making sure landlords and banks check people's status.
:20:07. > :20:10.They should settle the issue of the UK Borders. They should back the
:20:11. > :20:15.amendment to have the referendum sooner rather than later. May I
:20:16. > :20:19.suggest there are concrete measures and teeth in this bill to toughen up
:20:20. > :20:24.on immigration. May I come back to the point about human rights. At the
:20:25. > :20:28.end of the day, we have got have a better balance in this country
:20:29. > :20:31.between the right to family life and parliament's ability to give
:20:32. > :20:38.guidelines to what is acceptable from the public's interest. That is
:20:39. > :20:45.what that amendment is about. 90% of successful appeals against
:20:46. > :20:50.deportation come through this. There are elements of the bill, approach
:20:51. > :20:57.to landlords and things which are dog whistle things. You do not
:20:58. > :21:04.support those things? Said -- stripping terror suspects of UK
:21:05. > :21:11.citizenship? It is not practical. Are you running scared of UKIP? The
:21:12. > :21:16.government has put this up as a sop to MPs. I can assure you I do not
:21:17. > :21:22.run scared of UKIP. When you are restricting the number of grounds
:21:23. > :21:26.appeals from 17 to four, that is a significant improvement with regards
:21:27. > :21:32.to allowing criminals, basically, to stay in this country. These are
:21:33. > :21:35.concrete measures in this bill to toughen up immigration, to get tough
:21:36. > :21:39.with foreign criminals and that should be welcomed by all parties.
:21:40. > :21:45.It should not be subject to party politics. And you agree. I would be
:21:46. > :21:52.delighted if John Baron agrees with UKIP on this and the offer is always
:21:53. > :21:57.there to join us. If UKIP had any MPs, which it does not, and in some
:21:58. > :22:01.ways it is outside this arena because this debate is going on
:22:02. > :22:06.inside the House of Commons, that is the biggest problem for UKIP, you
:22:07. > :22:09.are not part of all this. We are running the agenda. We pushed David
:22:10. > :22:13.Cameron to make the Europe speech and we went up in the polls. You
:22:14. > :22:22.pushed him to make the immigration speech and we went up in the polls.
:22:23. > :22:27.Don't flatter yourself. Tories are divided over this. If you want a
:22:28. > :22:32.united approach to the EU, it is UKIP. Can I suggest that is not
:22:33. > :22:36.true. We are now more united as a party than we have ever been. We
:22:37. > :22:40.have a referendum which we are all signed up to. We are trying to put
:22:41. > :22:44.legislation through Parliament, we cannot help it if Labour and the
:22:45. > :22:47.Liberals are voting down the referendum, but these are
:22:48. > :22:52.conservative measures which will be taking to the next election. Why are
:22:53. > :22:58.you doing this? 15 months from the next election and your party,
:22:59. > :23:03.according to Michael Howard, hardly a Europhile in that sense, who is
:23:04. > :23:08.saying stop it, don't do this. You are pulling the party apart, it
:23:09. > :23:14.looks divided. What do you say to him? We are here as MPs, I will be
:23:15. > :23:19.supporting the Immigration Bill but there is nothing to stop me trying
:23:20. > :23:23.to improve it. They think you are doing it just do improve your own
:23:24. > :23:29.narrative. It is up to other people to a tribute motives. What we have
:23:30. > :23:34.to do is try and improve legislation as it goes through. There are things
:23:35. > :23:41.not being discussed here at all, the impact on public health, it will
:23:42. > :23:44.encourage racism, some of my constituents are British citizens
:23:45. > :23:48.and have every right to rent a house but will face problems as a result
:23:49. > :23:54.of this Bill. There is a lot really wrong with it. So Labour will not
:23:55. > :24:01.supported? We will not be voting for it at the third reading. Are you
:24:02. > :24:12.opposing it? It is above my pay grade. I am going to abstain myself.
:24:13. > :24:16.You are sitting on a fence. There are some elements which are hateful
:24:17. > :24:21.for my constituents but there are other elements which will make a
:24:22. > :24:25.change if they do go through. Let me come back to a point made on human
:24:26. > :24:29.rights, do you accept that claim that judges have overstepped the
:24:30. > :24:33.mark in the way they do interpret these cases that are not in the
:24:34. > :24:38.public interest? No, I do not accept that. You have to balance the rights
:24:39. > :24:42.of a criminal to be deported against those they have offended against,
:24:43. > :24:46.and people feel strongly about it and I completely understand that but
:24:47. > :24:52.my view is that balance should be carried out independently by a
:24:53. > :24:55.judge. What I think is a retrograde step is to exclude even
:24:56. > :25:00.consideration of this issue for certain groups of individuals. That
:25:01. > :25:03.is a slippery slope. Who next is to be excluded from even having their
:25:04. > :25:09.rights taken into consideration? It is a slippery slope. Who would be
:25:10. > :25:14.next? It does include a right of appeal, the right to call for a
:25:15. > :25:21.judicial review, particular around the needs of children. Have
:25:22. > :25:25.fundamental rights and to say for some people, you do not have them.
:25:26. > :25:32.If you have been sentenced for more than a year, you will be deported.
:25:33. > :25:35.You are not entitled to live here, you will be deported unless there
:25:36. > :25:39.are serious grounds to believe you will be tortured or murdered. I
:25:40. > :25:47.think that is perfectly reasonable. We have seen too many cases where
:25:48. > :25:52.the right to family life has assumed to great and importance, compared to
:25:53. > :25:56.the right public interest. It is about a fundamental right, it either
:25:57. > :25:59.applies to everybody or you are picking off groups of individuals
:26:00. > :26:07.which will ring warning bells to people. When a criminal commits a
:26:08. > :26:12.crime, there is a paste to -- a price to pay to society overall and
:26:13. > :26:15.one of those is to say, we should reassess the right to family life
:26:16. > :26:19.versus the public interest with regard to protecting the public
:26:20. > :26:23.generally. No matter what anybody says, Parliament has a duty to make
:26:24. > :26:28.sure we get that balance right on the half of the law-abiding
:26:29. > :26:32.majority. Thank you to my guests. After a surprise government defeat
:26:33. > :26:36.in the House of Lords yesterday, a ban on smoking in cars with children
:26:37. > :26:42.on board has moved a step closer. Campaigners have welcomed the
:26:43. > :26:45.result. They say the move would protect children exposed to
:26:46. > :26:53.second-hand smoking. The band is not directly oppose smoking in cars with
:26:54. > :26:58.children in them, but it backs the proposal. This morning, the deputy
:26:59. > :27:04.minister Nick Clegg, who is known to be a smoker, had this to say on Elbe
:27:05. > :27:09.BC radio. I do not personally think it will work to pass a law. Of
:27:10. > :27:14.course, it is a stupid thing to do to smoke in a car with kids in the
:27:15. > :27:18.back, in the same way you should not give your child a can of Coke before
:27:19. > :27:23.they go to bed or only feed them crisps breakfast, lunch and supper.
:27:24. > :27:27.I am like anybody else, I have got small children, I'm dismayed that
:27:28. > :27:31.anyone might do that, especially in an enclosed space like that. The
:27:32. > :27:36.question is, is right to always have a law to fix something you do not
:27:37. > :27:41.like. I know the temptation is to always say, there is a problem,
:27:42. > :27:44.where is the law? I'm quite an old-fashioned liberal and I do not
:27:45. > :27:48.think you should legislate unless will make a difference. An
:27:49. > :27:54.interesting debate. Nick Clegg was speaking this morning. Giles is in
:27:55. > :27:58.central lobby to find out what MPs think. This amendment is about the
:27:59. > :28:04.principle, and not banning it. But nonetheless there is a lot of
:28:05. > :28:14.support for this. It has with me Luciano Burge. Why should the state
:28:15. > :28:19.get involved? This is a serious issue. We know every week half a
:28:20. > :28:23.million children are subjected to toxic levels of smoke because they
:28:24. > :28:28.are in a where an adult is smoking. We never every year 300,000 children
:28:29. > :28:33.have to go to the doctor because of illnesses they are suffering because
:28:34. > :28:39.of passive smoke. That is why we have been discussing it. If that is
:28:40. > :28:45.the case, why not ban smoking? This is an isolated place. Why not in the
:28:46. > :28:49.home? Can the state do this sort of thing. There are lots of things we
:28:50. > :28:53.regulate in a car already, the fact you have to wear a seat belt, the
:28:54. > :28:58.fact you cannot talk on a mobile phone and you have to have specific
:28:59. > :29:02.child seats. We are not seeking to criminalise smokers. If an adult
:29:03. > :29:05.wants to smoke, that is their right but we are concerned about
:29:06. > :29:11.protecting children and that is why we think the debate is so important.
:29:12. > :29:14.Is your objecting to this on the libertarian side that the state has
:29:15. > :29:23.no business telling people what to do on the practical side, how do you
:29:24. > :29:29.enforce it? It is both. It is not practical to enforce it. The police
:29:30. > :29:32.are already stretched. They should not be prioritising stopping cars
:29:33. > :29:37.where someone may be smoking and trying to work out whether the child
:29:38. > :29:41.is under 18 or over 18, is the person is opposed to try and prove
:29:42. > :29:53.that the age is someone over 18. How will we check this? A burglar is
:29:54. > :29:57.going to be walking down the street and impeded because the police will
:29:58. > :30:02.be rounding up people smoking in cars. You know the children will
:30:03. > :30:06.kick off and tell the parents, we are talking about toddlers and young
:30:07. > :30:09.kids here. Is there a balance to be struck between the rights of people
:30:10. > :30:13.to choose to do something and the rights of the state to look after
:30:14. > :30:17.children who cannot voice that complaint? You are saying it is
:30:18. > :30:22.topless and small children, I do not think that is what the Labour Party
:30:23. > :30:29.is proposing, they are saying people under 18 -- toddlers and small
:30:30. > :30:34.children. This is a private space. Luciano cannot complain that it is
:30:35. > :30:38.terrible to smoke in a car in front of young children but in a caravan
:30:39. > :30:44.it is fine, a similarly imposed space. This is the march of the
:30:45. > :30:49.nanny state, the patronising nanny state where we know best and other
:30:50. > :30:58.MPs have come into Parliament to try and ban everything they do not like.
:30:59. > :31:04.Do you want to ban everything? Of course not. We are talking about
:31:05. > :31:08.concentrated levels of smoke in a car. In terms of how you might
:31:09. > :31:12.enforce it, we want to learn from the experience of other countries
:31:13. > :31:17.where they already have this legislation. Certain states of
:31:18. > :31:21.America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. Never where it has worked
:31:22. > :31:34.well and whether you go down the criminal or civil route. We would
:31:35. > :31:37.like people to back the principal, is what you are saying, but you have
:31:38. > :31:44.not worked out how you will do that. The last Labour government
:31:45. > :31:50.commissioned research into this area. It is only a shame the current
:31:51. > :31:57.government cancelled it when it came into office in 2010. We need to have
:31:58. > :32:01.that work done. The issue is that we are keen to protect children who do
:32:02. > :32:08.not have a voice and do not choose which vehicle they travel in. Do not
:32:09. > :32:14.think that what will happen in the end is that people will not do it
:32:15. > :32:18.anyway? Parents are much better in bringing up their children than the
:32:19. > :32:26.state. I trust parents to make the right decisions. The challenge, as I
:32:27. > :32:30.said at the start of half a million children every week are still
:32:31. > :32:35.subjected to this. Education is really important. Legislation can
:32:36. > :32:46.help. With car seats, when the wearing a safety belt came in, we
:32:47. > :32:53.saw a change. MPs from all over the House supported. 22 members of
:32:54. > :33:00.coalition MPs supported it in 2011. We will have to see what happens. If
:33:01. > :33:04.I ever dared to smoke in my car, my children would go crazy, so that
:33:05. > :33:11.will not happen. It is a free votes they are not so tied to party
:33:12. > :33:21.loyalties. -- a free vote, so they are not tied. And we've been joined
:33:22. > :33:29.by viewers in Scotland, who have been watching First Minister's
:33:30. > :33:32.Questions from Holyrood. Recently released official papers show that
:33:33. > :33:40.Margaret Thatcher 's garment had a secret plan to close 75 pits. --
:33:41. > :33:45.government. Here is what David Cameron said yesterday. We have a
:33:46. > :33:50.system called releasing paperwork from ten, 20, 30 years ago and we
:33:51. > :33:58.should stick to that. If anyone needs to make an apology for the
:33:59. > :34:03.role in the miners' strike, it should be Arthur Scargill. If anyone
:34:04. > :34:06.else wants to ask about their roles, it is the role of the leader of the
:34:07. > :34:18.low the party. They never condemned the fact they want to hold a ballot.
:34:19. > :34:28.-- the Labour Party. I am joined by the Labour MP calling for an apology
:34:29. > :34:34.and by the Conservative MP, Andrew Russell Nelson. It is about newly
:34:35. > :34:38.released information from the Cabinet papers. We have asked for an
:34:39. > :34:44.apology but it does not look like we will get one. We have called for
:34:45. > :34:48.transparency. In the Cabinet papers, it did show that the Government at
:34:49. > :36:35.the time is pressurising the police. We have asked for full transparency.
:36:36. > :36:40.In relation to what happened, We are asking very specific questions. We
:36:41. > :36:43.needed the backbenchers to give something to cheer about. I
:36:44. > :36:48.understand in the heat of the moment why David Cameron was particularly
:36:49. > :36:55.boorish but I think it was relevant to the questions that we were
:36:56. > :37:02.calling for. It was not relevant to the miners strike. It is really
:37:03. > :37:05.important to understand this. The Cabinet papers highlighted some very
:37:06. > :37:09.specific issues around policing and whether the public were lied to. We
:37:10. > :37:16.are saying, let's have transparency and reconciliation. You are the
:37:17. > :37:21.government of the day, publish the materials. The idea that Mrs
:37:22. > :37:27.Thatcher's government was anti the mining communities is wrong. You
:37:28. > :37:31.have indicated that. There were 80% less of them at the end. We were
:37:32. > :37:33.going through a change in nationalised industries and all
:37:34. > :37:38.these things were happening at the time. We all know what took place
:37:39. > :37:44.but to try and make out somehow how government was trying to undermine
:37:45. > :37:48.the mining communities was not correct. Scargill was using those
:37:49. > :37:51.people sadly for his own political ends and had he got away with it he
:37:52. > :37:55.could have brought down a critically elected government and undermine did
:37:56. > :38:00.our Chrissy and Mrs Thatcher was right to stand up to it. We will
:38:01. > :38:07.come back to the Battle of that Jan Scargill. On the issue of the
:38:08. > :38:15.papers, did the Conservative government lie about what they were
:38:16. > :38:21.doing? Why did they keep it secret? Why did they keep it secret which
:38:22. > :38:25.led to decades of deprivation and social collapse. I do not think
:38:26. > :38:30.anyone was lying. We are talking about 30 years ago and neither of us
:38:31. > :38:35.was a member of Parliament. Many options would have been bound to be
:38:36. > :38:39.considered. Quite where it ended, who could have told at that
:38:40. > :38:44.particular point. Clearly, they were looking at different options and the
:38:45. > :38:55.papers have revealed that. There was economic change, it was part of a
:38:56. > :38:58.plan to close are uneconomic pits. There is always the secrecy with
:38:59. > :39:04.Cabinet papers, what is the point of trying to break over this now?
:39:05. > :39:11.Andrew is arguing with himself. He is saying this is economic, it is
:39:12. > :39:15.deindustrialisation. It was. They did say that at the time and the
:39:16. > :39:20.Cabinet papers said that was not their position. It was about
:39:21. > :39:25.politics. They felt that the mining communities were a threat to the
:39:26. > :39:28.government. Norman Tebbit yesterday likened the mining strike to the
:39:29. > :39:33.Falklands War. That is a stark indication of the mentality of the
:39:34. > :39:36.government at the time. These are people who were hard-working, tax
:39:37. > :39:40.paying, law-abiding people, they were defending their jobs and their
:39:41. > :39:48.industry and at the end of it there was a secret plan and 80% of miners
:39:49. > :39:51.lost their jobs under Thatcher. The industry was totally decimated.
:39:52. > :39:57.Should Arthur Scargill apologise for what he did and the way he led the
:39:58. > :40:04.miners strike. Should Arthur Scargill apologise as well? Arthur
:40:05. > :40:07.Scargill speaks for himself. I am a member of Parliament. I am
:40:08. > :40:12.scrutinising government papers and I am asking the government to be
:40:13. > :40:19.accountable for those. Does it change your view, you have heard now
:40:20. > :40:25.what the debate is about, has it changed your mind about the miners'
:40:26. > :40:30.strike and the aftermath? I think the the transparency is a powerful
:40:31. > :40:34.one. The police and confidence in the government will only be there if
:40:35. > :40:38.we know what went on. This has to be eight powerful plea. Let's see the
:40:39. > :40:43.full details and then we can have an informed bait about what happened.
:40:44. > :40:53.Are you not kicking yourself in the foot here? Whatever the expression
:40:54. > :41:03.is. Even Neil clinic has said I was undermined by the action that Arthur
:41:04. > :41:07.Scargill was taking -- even Neil Kinnock has said that. There was
:41:08. > :41:14.something which was more damaging to labour than it ever was the
:41:15. > :41:21.Conservatives'. I am not speaking for Arthur Scargill. What I'm saying
:41:22. > :41:26.is those of us who were there who saw what happened during the strike
:41:27. > :41:29.have lived with a sense of injustice ever since, about the policing and
:41:30. > :41:35.what happened to them. I think government has an opportunity, to
:41:36. > :41:40.have full transparency and reconciliation and then we can move
:41:41. > :41:47.on. But as important to those communities today in 2014. Should
:41:48. > :41:52.David Cameron apologise? Absolutely not. We had to defeat Arthur
:41:53. > :41:55.Scargill. We were not attacking communities. We were going through
:41:56. > :41:59.economic change and it was inevitable. It is a great pity that
:42:00. > :42:03.the Labour Party are saying that actually Arthur Scargill was in the
:42:04. > :42:07.wrong. It is being reported that Labour's national executive will
:42:08. > :42:13.scrap the parties are electoral college that elected Ed Miliband,
:42:14. > :42:18.will that happen next week? You will have to wait until the changes are
:42:19. > :42:22.announced. I support big changes in the Labour Party. I am not going to
:42:23. > :42:27.go through the detail of those changes? They will be agreed through
:42:28. > :42:33.the national executive. What you are going to see next week, I am very
:42:34. > :42:37.confident about it, are big changes in the relationship between Labour
:42:38. > :42:40.and the trade unions, about Ed Miliband modernising his party and
:42:41. > :42:44.saying, we have a unique relationship with millions of
:42:45. > :42:48.people. The Tories are bankrolled by a few millionaires at the top, we
:42:49. > :42:53.want to strengthen our relationship with working people. I wanted you to
:42:54. > :43:00.answer the question, not have a quick political debate. Our guest of
:43:01. > :43:07.the day has been hired by the Labour Party to review how the criminal
:43:08. > :43:10.justice system treats witnesses and victims of crime.
:43:11. > :43:14.It has come after a high-profile case where a witness took her own
:43:15. > :43:17.life after giving evidence. We will talk about what can be done to make
:43:18. > :43:23.the court process more palatable. But what is it really like in the
:43:24. > :43:27.witness box? Frances Andrade took her own life
:43:28. > :43:33.last year a week after she had given evidence about a former music
:43:34. > :43:37.teacher who had abused her. We have spoken to a woman who knows exactly
:43:38. > :43:42.what it is like. Last summer, she gave evidence in the trial of a man
:43:43. > :43:46.accused of sexually assaulting her. He was acquitted. We are not
:43:47. > :43:50.revealing her right entity. She is particularly scathing about the
:43:51. > :43:55.judge. The way he treated me was as if he was trying to prove myself. He
:43:56. > :43:59.was not sensitive about the subject matter and had a poor understanding
:44:00. > :44:04.of sexual violence. I was made to feel like I was a little girl and I
:44:05. > :44:08.was wasting his time. Just as bad was the bureaucracy of the court
:44:09. > :44:12.process which made the experience even worse. I had random phone calls
:44:13. > :44:16.from people in the police centre have to speak to me. It was people I
:44:17. > :44:19.have never spoken to before and they said just two days before the trial
:44:20. > :44:24.but there was a great possibility that the date for the trial would be
:44:25. > :44:29.moving. When you have been waiting eight months that is a really,
:44:30. > :44:33.really big thing. The Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has
:44:34. > :44:37.listened. He has published a new version of the victims' code.
:44:38. > :44:42.Victims can read out statements about how they have been affected in
:44:43. > :44:47.court. In some cases, evidence can be pre-recorded. And then there are
:44:48. > :44:51.people like Linda from the charity victim support. She prepares
:44:52. > :45:05.witnesses of all ages for being cross-examined. They will put it to
:45:06. > :45:10.you it did not happen at all. An adult can understand all of that.
:45:11. > :45:15.They have been in that situation and will answer with their own sarcasm
:45:16. > :45:21.perhaps. A child has no idea what any of that means. They will have no
:45:22. > :45:25.tools to counteract that. Witnesses are allowed to have someone like
:45:26. > :45:31.Linda in court. For many victims, it is the nature of the system that is
:45:32. > :45:36.a problem. I felt I was a small part of the thing. They would not have
:45:37. > :45:43.had a case had I not gone through the whole process. We asked the
:45:44. > :46:03.Ministry of Justice about this. A new victims code gives victims the
:46:04. > :46:09.option to read out their personal statement and tell the court how
:46:10. > :46:14.crime has affected them. Barbara is here to discuss this. The code of
:46:15. > :46:18.conduct for barristers has been replaced and we have just talked
:46:19. > :46:23.about the new victims code. Do we need anything else? We do. I am in
:46:24. > :46:27.favour of the work that has already been done but we cannot escape the
:46:28. > :46:30.conclusion that most vulnerable victims do not have the confidence
:46:31. > :46:36.to even come forward to report what has happened to them because they
:46:37. > :46:41.fear the process. When they do come forward, most of them say they will
:46:42. > :46:45.not do it again. I am a big fan of a criminal justice system. I do think
:46:46. > :46:50.that in relation to victims, we cannot go on any more simply saying,
:46:51. > :46:55.that is the way it is, bad luck. We need to take it much more
:46:56. > :47:01.seriously. That is a shocking indictment on the criminal justice
:47:02. > :47:05.system. Some victims have such a terrible experience at some said
:47:06. > :47:10.they would not do it again. Anyone who present in a criminal trial must
:47:11. > :47:16.be treated fairly and appropriately. What does appropriate
:47:17. > :47:20.mean? Anyone who makes an allegation about a criminal offence is not a
:47:21. > :47:24.victim until it has been proved and someone has been convicted. We are
:47:25. > :47:28.in danger of confusing the situation where someone is being asked to give
:47:29. > :47:34.evidence and is there as a witness and the position of someone who is
:47:35. > :47:37.able to be vindicated in court because the jury has accepted the
:47:38. > :47:46.story and may become the victim. There is a huge amount of support to
:47:47. > :47:53.to a European directive. Victims have a charter of entitlements to
:47:54. > :47:59.support them. Do you back that? This is what has been demanded and it has
:48:00. > :48:04.been implemented. It is important to look at the system in its proper
:48:05. > :48:08.context. We have statutes and legislation setting out what the
:48:09. > :48:13.defence can do. We have never had a victims law in this country. That is
:48:14. > :48:17.quite remarkable given the central importance of evicting, something
:48:18. > :48:26.that clearly set out in law that entitlements and makes them
:48:27. > :48:34.enforceable. What sort of Lord you want? They have a right to anonymity
:48:35. > :48:38.in certain types of crime and European Union directive, which sets
:48:39. > :48:42.out their entitlements. They have a Human Rights Act which allows them
:48:43. > :48:45.to participate effectively in these proceedings. They are entitled to
:48:46. > :48:49.special measures when they are vulnerable. I do not understand what
:48:50. > :48:58.more it is they need that they do not have already. Victims say they
:48:59. > :49:03.do not have the confidence to come forward. They said they would not do
:49:04. > :49:05.it again. If you ask most people who have been through the process
:49:06. > :49:11.whether they have been treated fairly, almost all of them would say
:49:12. > :49:15.no. We cannot ignore that. Something has to change. If victims feel they
:49:16. > :49:21.are the ones that have done wrong, I accept your point but until the case
:49:22. > :49:30.has been proven one way or the other... If you are made to feel
:49:31. > :49:36.about the guilty party yourself, it surely the onus is in the wrong
:49:37. > :49:42.place? It is a two-way street. If you are making a very serious
:49:43. > :49:47.accusation, that person will want to defend themselves. These accusations
:49:48. > :49:53.can be unpleasant. They can be about child abuse or rape, which can be
:49:54. > :49:56.devastating. Very difficult if you are a child or a vulnerable woman.
:49:57. > :49:58.That person will want to defend themselves. These accusations can be
:49:59. > :50:00.unpleasant. They can be about child abuse or rape, which can be
:50:01. > :50:07.devastating. Very difficult if you are a child or a vulnerable woman.
:50:08. > :50:11.There are honourable men as well the defence has a right to protest the
:50:12. > :50:18.account. Part of the problem with believing the victim, people go
:50:19. > :50:20.around saying you will be believed, but sometimes people are given an
:50:21. > :50:29.unrealistic expectation that because they are told they will be --
:50:30. > :50:33.believed, they will not be challenged. Sometimes, some people
:50:34. > :50:37.come into court in cases where they are very upset and angry at the
:50:38. > :50:42.thought of what has happened and they asked right and of the thought
:50:43. > :50:48.of seeing this person in court. -- they are frightened. I have given
:50:49. > :50:53.evidence myself and it is stressful. I can understand them
:50:54. > :51:01.feeling they are not being treated there but it can be a mistake in
:51:02. > :51:09.perception. Rights of defence are extremely important. Any case has to
:51:10. > :51:12.be properly tested. I do not think we can go on with the arrangements
:51:13. > :51:16.as they are. It is not just what happens in court. It is the way
:51:17. > :51:20.people are brought in to make a complaint in the first place. It is
:51:21. > :51:24.how they are dealt with and the support they have around them. We
:51:25. > :51:27.need to achieve something we have never been able to achieve before
:51:28. > :51:33.and that is getting better recognition and support for victims
:51:34. > :51:39.without taking away the important rights of the defence. That makes it
:51:40. > :51:43.difficult. I accept that. It requires us to step back and look at
:51:44. > :51:47.the entire set of arrangements from start to finish. That is what we are
:51:48. > :51:51.going through as part of the review I am carrying out for the Labour
:51:52. > :51:58.Party. We are on that journey and I want to include as many people as
:51:59. > :52:02.possible in the process. The victims commissioner said lasted that
:52:03. > :52:05.victims do not always want an offender tried and convicted.
:52:06. > :52:11.Someone the violence and behaviour against them stopped. It is
:52:12. > :52:24.interesting. How far do you go with the public interests in prosecuting?
:52:25. > :52:30.Does the expectation of you winning -- is the expectation of you winning
:52:31. > :52:34.not that high? Sometimes it is appropriate to continue with a case,
:52:35. > :52:39.even if the victim does not want to support it any more, visit may be a
:52:40. > :52:44.pattern of behaviour, it may be ongoing offending. These decisions
:52:45. > :52:48.are best made in individual cases. I am talking about something much more
:52:49. > :52:52.fundamental. We have only really been talking about victims rights in
:52:53. > :52:58.the last 15 years or so. I support all the good work that has been
:52:59. > :53:04.done. I support the code and we need to go further. The barristers code
:53:05. > :53:13.says you must not, humiliate or annoy it witness. Barristers do,
:53:14. > :53:18.don't they? If your defendant Clyde is saying to you, I have never seen
:53:19. > :53:22.this person before, the allegation is made up, they are lying. People
:53:23. > :53:25.think of something says something which is untrue that the other
:53:26. > :53:31.person is intentionally lying. The barrister has to make a judgment.
:53:32. > :53:34.The judge is there to make sure the barrister does not behave improperly
:53:35. > :53:41.or offensively and can intervene. At the end of the day, if someone is
:53:42. > :53:47.saying that did not happen, I was not there, it was not me, that has
:53:48. > :53:50.to be put to the other side. Sometimes people do live. You are
:53:51. > :53:55.carrying out this review for the Labour Party. There has been
:53:56. > :54:04.speculation you could stand to be a Labour MP in 2015. Will you? I gave
:54:05. > :54:12.up the post three months ago. I am considering a number of options.
:54:13. > :54:21.We will watch this space. We have all done it, gone to a
:54:22. > :54:25.search engine to answer a simple question like, how many Tories are
:54:26. > :54:31.rebelling over the Immigration Bill? Or is Father Christmas real? I have
:54:32. > :54:35.not done that one lately. As if by magic, the search engine knows what
:54:36. > :54:42.you are going to say before you type it. It even works with politicians.
:54:43. > :54:48.Here is Giles with more. There are certain gizmos which help you out.
:54:49. > :54:52.Like Google. It has its controversies but it has an
:54:53. > :54:57.interesting function, auto complete. A number of people have pointed this
:54:58. > :55:02.out. If you put in a question like is David Cameron... It will make
:55:03. > :55:07.some suggestions based on the searches which have already gone on
:55:08. > :55:12.under that question. It gives you the answer, is David Cameron
:55:13. > :55:16.Scottish, a Thatcherite, a Christian or dead? In the best tradition of
:55:17. > :55:54.cookery programmes, here are some I made earlier.
:55:55. > :56:22.I have to say, apart from being a bit of a giggle, this tells us
:56:23. > :56:27.absolutely nothing, except that people are obsessed with
:56:28. > :56:32.politicians' marriage status. Let's try this, is Giles still not... Oh,
:56:33. > :56:38.good lord, I will leave it there. That will just entice everybody to
:56:39. > :56:45.have a look. That was just him having a search for his own name. I
:56:46. > :56:51.should say, other search engines are available. With me in the studio is
:56:52. > :56:57.Jim Waterson from Buzzfeed UK. Do you do this a lot? A lot of people
:56:58. > :57:01.are assessed with whether Ed Miliband is made of magnets. I do
:57:02. > :57:08.not know where this is from. We have put it to Labour, they have
:57:09. > :57:12.concerned he is not but said he attracts voters! I wonder how long
:57:13. > :57:18.it took them to think of that. Is it just the most popular search engines
:57:19. > :57:22.which come up. It is a mixture of that. I think there are also a few
:57:23. > :57:27.pranksters who are having fun who are putting lines in code, somewhere
:57:28. > :57:33.hidden on websites, Google is picking up on it and that is doing a
:57:34. > :57:36.feedback loop. For a while, there was something which said is Ed
:57:37. > :57:42.Miliband a suit filled with meringues? I do not think that is
:57:43. > :57:53.actually anything. Have you ever done, is Keir Starmer... ? No! Will
:57:54. > :58:00.you do it now? I do not know. What about Buzzfeed. That is going to do
:58:01. > :58:08.politics? People want to look at fun list and they also want to read
:58:09. > :58:12.about politics and they are not separate. Our audience is anyone
:58:13. > :58:16.interested in politics. Mainly they are young people 18 to 35 at the
:58:17. > :58:20.moment but we get traffic all over the place. How will you do it
:58:21. > :58:25.differently? We have got a lot of things we are working on. The not
:58:26. > :58:29.strung by the old newspaper formats, we do not need to waffle
:58:30. > :58:36.on. That is just as well because we have run out of time. Just time to
:58:37. > :58:44.do the answer to our quiz. Which reality TV show would David Cameron
:58:45. > :58:49.rather be on? I am going to go for Splash. You are wrong. It is The
:58:50. > :58:53.Great British Bake Off. Far safer, he does not have to get into a
:58:54. > :59:02.swimming costume. Thank you to all our guests. Goodbye.