06/03/2014 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics. David Cameron's in

Brussels for an emergency summit on the Ukraine crisis but what chance

is there of the EU showing a united front to Russian aggression? British

leaders talked tough at PMQs yesterday but the Germans are

against sanctions. Will President Putin end up with no more than a

Meanwhile, back at Westminster, more coalition skirmishes over

immigration. Slap on the wrist? The Lib Dems say they're intensely

relaxed about people coming to the UK. The Tories aren't exactly

relaxed, so have the stage-managed rows gone too far? Everyone agrees

there are not enough affordable homes. We will speak to the Housing

Minister and an academic who thinks he has the ants are -- he has the

answer. We will test your knowledge of the Lib Dems. All that is coming

up in the next hour. And with us for the whole programme today is Olly

Grender. She's a former head of communications for the Lib Dems and

these days shelters in the relative obscurity of the House of Lords.

She's the 35th most influential Lib Dem in the land, according to the

Telegraph, which of course is the party's in-house newspaper. And, in

fact, they've moved her down the list by 13 places since she joined

the Lords. But, tough luck, Matthew Oakshott, she's still one ahead of

you. First, a statement from the Home Secretary following publication

of the review into the original Stephen Lawrence murder

investigation. The review found, reasonable grounds to suspect

corruption by the police. Here is the Home Secretary. I do not say

this lightly but I think the greatest possible scrutiny is now

needed into what has taken place. And so, given the gravity of what

has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public enquiry, led

by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and

the fruition -- the operation of the STS. Only a public enquiry will get

to the full truth. To amazed speaking on that developing story.

We are joined now by Norman Smith, who is in the Central Lobby of the

House of Commons. Bring us up to date. What we heard from the Home

Secretary was a political bombshell. It is a real body blow to the

standing, the credibility, of the police. You basically have a

Conservative Home Secretary saying we have a problem with our police.

It is all based on this review into the conduct of the police, not just

into the original enquiry their response to next person. This

details instances of the police delivered it is all based on this

review into the conduct of the police, not just into the original

in quiet but their response to next person. This details instances of

the police delivered information, possible miscarriages of justice by

the use of undercover officers. It is the response by the Home

Secretary which frankly is a moment, not just a public enquiry

into the conduct of the police, a judge led public enquiry over

Lawrence but she is also going to introduce a new legal offence of

police corruption. That, I think, gives you some appreciation of how

concerned the Home Secretary is about the problem of police

corruption that she feels it necessary now to introduce such a

specific offence as a lease corruption. She also said she will

introduce measures to in Courage whistle-blowers to come forward. The

National Crime Agency were arrested gate whether further instances of

corruption into the handling of the whole Steven Lawrence Naga existed.

-- Steven Lawrence saga existed. We know there where we writing of

witness statements and the plebs gate saga, police officers coming to

the House of Commons to apologise for their conduct and now this. It

is a profoundly and serious -- it is a profoundly serious moment for the

police. It is about how they are seen by the public and how they are

viewed by politicians here. Thank you fray much of putting all that

into context. This is a crisis for the police. Yes, it is. There has

been a drip drip of it. Some of the cases that are now taking place,

like the hacking trials. It is extraordinary. It sounds like

Theresa May is doing the right thing. In the House of Lords, Doreen

Lawrence is one of the members of the House of Lords. I spoke to her

the other day. The continual upset. Not only to go through that thing

from which you never recover of losing your son. To find out time

and again what the institutions who are supposed to help her do behind

the scenes. It is shocking. It seems it is much worse than anyone

thought, or at least as bad as the worst critics of the police have

claimed. We have to believe it. It needs credibility. It gets tougher

after that announcement from the Home Secretary. It will be running

story all day today. We know that the Lib Dems and Tories allow each

other license disunity. It shows the voters and their parties what they

are really made of. The gloves have come off this morning with the

latest partly-manufactured row between the coalition partners over

immigration. The Conservatives are already struggling to reach their

target of cutting net migration to the tens of thousands. And, in a

display of support for his Cabinet colleagues that warms the heart,

Nick Clegg's had this to say on LBC radio. I have always said to them,

the problem is it is a target over which they do not have full control.

It depends partly how many Brits lead this country. Actually, the

number of Brits leaving the country is at its lowest level for many

years. You cannot tell the number of Brits leaving the country in order

to meet targets. It is absurd. I think they have become very

preoccupied with that. There are certain things we have to do, they

are down on illegal immigration, unscrupulous employers, reintroduced

exit checks. It is about tatters and battered public confidence in the

way the immigration system is run. So, that's the Deputy Prime Minister

on LBC radio this morning. Later on, the Business Secretary Vince Cable's

going to express a similar view. The new Immigration Minister will be

taking a different view. He has said net migration is still much too

high. What is the difference between you and the Tories on immigration?

We talk about having a net figure. The tens of thousands figures. It is

not in the coalition agreement. The Liberal Democrats do not want net

immigration to fall to the tens of thousands? The Liberal Democrats

want to make sure there are proper instigation is of checks. You will

have heard Nick Clegg talking about exit controls. It is not going to

happen but the Tories want net migration to fall to the tens of

thousands. They want proof of the figure. It is a full Sig. If loads

of UK citizens day, then you cannot improve that figure. -- this day.

Lib Dems want to control things like illegal immigration. You both agree

with that. How we deal with it, there is a bigger disagreement. I

cannot understand whether Tories of pro or anti immigration and will not

introduce X checks in order to have a proper debate about what is going

on. I cannot decide what you think is an appropriate number of

immigrants to come to this country every year. Making sure there is a

controlled number coming in. You need to have a ballpark figure.

Putting a target on it of tens of thousands is not achievable. I do

not personally have a target. How can you control it? You need to know

the numbers. If I control the heat on the cooker, I have a thermostat.

We're in a position where we do not know. Asking me for target after

target after target... Just one would be fine. I do not have a

target. I am at a loss to work out how you can control anything if you

do not even have a single target. What you do is understand who is

leading a how many people are leaving. If there are economic

migrants coming in and are paying their taxes and that is what Vince

Cable is talking about, she is intensely relaxed about it will stop

if students are here, they are intensely relaxed about that. If I

said to you 3 million people or 3.5 people you would be satisfied with

an answer like that? Exit checks is a very clear policy. Would we have

to put up with this allowing for the next 14 months? Will there be

endless, manufactured batters between the two of you? It is like

Wall of the Roses. We have to watch this for 14 months! You could have a

Blair/ Brown scenario. In their leaders debate at the last general

election, what everyone wanted to know was what the immigration policy

was at what people were saying about immigration. Having a good of

national debate about this but without the rhetoric which is

dangerous in terms of attitude and society. It is a good thing. We have

seen a lot of rhetoric from the Lib Dems and Tories. So, that's the view

from the Lib Dems. But what do the Tories make of how coalition

government is working? We're joined now by another former Number ten

insider, Sean Worth. He used to work for the Prime Minister and now works

for the lobbying firm, Quiller. In your mind, are these manufactured

rows are is this a liberation of the two parties in the run-up to the

general election? There are quite a lot of differences. It is natural

they will voice differences. The point I would make and this is not a

party political point am trying to make, there is a greater difficulty

for the Liberal Democrats because of the kind of coalition we have in

this country. On the continent, minority parties own separate chunks

of policy often. They build a political platform on the back of

that. They are trying to share power, not just on spending, which

is right. On the issues they do not agree on, there is a bit of disunity

and lack of clarity over what they stand for. I do not think we will

see this power-sharing arrangement in the future. How would you have

split the departments? Could you imagine energy going purely to the

Liberal Democrats with no Tory ministers in that department? My

observation, having worked in the coalition and looking at it now, and

looking around the world at how it works, absolutely. A minority party.

If you think about the position of the Lib Dems, they are not in a good

place. They do not have territory in government on which they can convey

a platform. I am not suggesting they go to single issues. On the

continent you do see more power-sharing based on areas, when

you go into a coalition new demand territorial control effectively of

say odysseys which are relevant to consumers or social policies.

Without that electoral platform, we are seeing a disintegration within

certain departments, like parts of the Home Office on immigration. It

looks more and more difficult as you approach an election. If you did

have that model and I imagine this is what will happen next time. If

you have a model where you share more distinctly, it will be

perfectly legitimate for the Liberal Democrats to be briefing against the

Home Secretary because they disagree. At the moment they are

personally responsible for every single policy that comes up after

the tax spending limits were agreed. You are saying the Lib Dems are

releasing this report on immigration in order to undermine what Theresa

May and the Tories are doing? The same with stop and search? There

have been issues where the Liberal Democrats are good -- disagree with

the majority part of government. That is perfectly acceptable.

Everyone knows the two parties have to rub along and they have done well

in the coalition. It is a function of the kind of coalition we have

got, I am suggesting, which is a bitter for the Liberal Democrats.

Lib Dems have got a problem? The only way they can get points across

is briefing against the other party? No, academics are going to write

about this forever, whether they should have controlled one

department as they do in some parts of continental Europe, but the

judgement was taken to be across all government policy, so the Deputy

Prime Minister, only time will tell and history books, I believe it was

the right way to do it. Others even in my party believe that maybe if

one controlled one department, I think that is a sideline. The

question you asking me is, is their counter briefing, is that going on?

I see as much counter briefing about George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith

that I do about any that is legitimate policy debate. I think

legitimate policy debate is a good aim. When I first worked in number

ten, I thought, the debates are pretty rough. I said that in the

click and he said, that's how it should be. You should have heated

debates. Let's see if we can help with that heated debate! We will

talk a bit more about immigration And we're joined now by Conservative

MP Nadhim Zahawi. Now. The Home Secretary was saying that for every

100 immigrants, 23 Brits lost their jobs, now the government has

published a report saying that there is little evidence that it has

caused statistically significant displacement from the labour market.

If you read the report, read on, I am sure you have, the report that

the Home Secretary was quoting on has not been contradicted as a

different period, 1995 until 2008, that was the period. 2010, I

apologise. What they are saying is that it was important data from that

report. So the robustness of 100 immigrants, non-EU, would result in

23 displaced jobs... That's not true, is it? It is contradicting the

data. And by the way, the original report also said statistics were not

robust and it depended on the time period you chose and if you took out

statistics that looked a bit dodgy, there was no statistical

significance. So this report is only backing up the previous one. The

previous one had caveats. But there is no contradiction. If you read

carefully, it's not contradiction. But there is between what the Home

Secretary said a couple of years ago and what this report as saying. We

lose 23 for every hundred that come in, that figure is just not true. On

the period the report is looking at... This is a new period, that's

what you need to tell your viewers. The real issue here is the rate at

which immigration comes into this country, and the problem was the

rate was too high. We have succeeded in bringing it down for non-EU

migrants, down by a third. That rate puts massive pressure on public

services, schools, hospital and social cohesion and may lead to

displacement of low-paid jobs. The Lib Dems took about people on low

pay and how they championed them, they should be championing them if

they are losing their jobs. You asked about why they is a target,

you set your organisation a target, so it has a focus to make sure that

it moves in the direction of meeting the target. We are, on the non-EU

target... But your target was overall immigration to be in the

tens of thousands and it is not. Ultimately the real issue is the

difference in wages between different European countries. We

have grown larger from the days of having six EU countries, to now

having 28. The difference now has to be looked at, and the idea that we

need, as a European family, to look at what measures we need to put in

place to stop that movement, those countries need to raise their wages

or the GDP per capita needs to increase. This is not a monologue.

The real question is, you made a promise that you can't keep. That's

the real problem. He promised that net migration would go down to the

tens of thousands, it did go down a bit, it's just risen again to

212,000. Can we just be honest here, there is no possibility by May of

next year that it will be in the tens of thousands, agreed? I was

about to say to you before you wanted to ask that question that the

poor factor of people coming over is being addressed through legislation,

from Europe... I think the target can still be met. By May 2015? In

any organisation, you set targets for the direction of travel of that

organisation. I would say wait and see. But I would say, the important

thing is to have targets. Do you want a bit? If we can negotiate a

settlement in terms of those countries... You cannot do that this

side of the election. That may be true, but it is important that we

address these issues. It also matters that politicians, when they

tell us these things, they are either true to their word or they

admit they got it wrong, and you have to have a new policy. I was

suggested the honest thing you to do is admit you are not going to hit

your target and come out with a new policy or target. I would say to

you, targets in any organisation are important, it is important to stick

to them and try and deliver on them. You tried and failed. We haven't, we

have legislation... What is it like, being in denial? We're not in

denial. You do things to try and hit the target. The point was, you made

a target with a part of immigration you have no control over. I cannot

have the life of me understand, if you are talking about bottom lines

and business imperatives, if someone walks into your business, you want

to know if they have walked out again. What is holding it up in the

Home Office? Tell me! I don't understand. Even from your point of

view, what is wrong with an exit control? While the Tories stalling

that? You are creating a false document between the Lib Dems, and

it will be delivered, my understanding is that, once the

technology and everything else is in place, it will be delivered because

we count people in now. We will be counting them out. Can I just bring

you back, because your party has dined out on this figure of 100

people coming, 23 British jobs are lost. The most of this new report,

which has been peer reviewed, with civil servants and academics, says

there is evidence that some labour market displacement in recent years,

when the economy was in recession. That's as far as it goes, it doesn't

say 23. It then also says that this is likely to dissipate over time,

and any displacement from one set of new arrivals will gradually decline.

From the higher earner. So the figure is a nonsense. What it

actually says is the previous report offered valuable evidence, so there

isn't this disagreement that you are trying to pretend exists between the

reports. The reality is, if we take a step back, it is about the rate of

people come to this country, about pressure on public services and how

pressure can be easily as it on the displacement of low-paid workers. If

the Lib Dems are serious about the people on the lowest wages... I'm

sorry, we have run out of time. Now to the crisis in Ukraine, and EU

leaders are meeting in Brussels today to see if they can agree on

sanctions against Russia following the occupation of Crimea. So can

they pull a rabbit out of the hat? Our correspondent Matthew Price is

in Brussels. How realistic is agreement on tough sanctions against

Russia when we already hearing that MPs from Angela Merkel's party in

Germany are extremely worried about anything that would harm their

economic interests? I think it's unrealistic to expect tough

sanctions. I think it's probably unrealistic to expect any sanctions.

It is more realistic to expect the possible threat of sanctions,

although one early leaked draft of the conclusions, and I reiterate

that it is early in the day on this, and it could change, but one early

leaked draft to our colleagues here at the Financial Times seems to have

stripped away even the threat of sanctions. It talks about possible

consequences, but that language could change. The EU risks looking

week at the end of this summit, the end of the day, when it seemed

leaders couldn't reach 10pm this evening without having something

substantive to say in response to Moscow? The way that sources here

answer that is to say that what they are trying to do is find it a

dramatic way through this, there can only be a political solution, it

will involve Russia and Ukraine talking. They are not about to put

troops on the ground, NATO is not about to send forces in, or the US.

So in the end they are left with the diplomatic push and threats that

might be made against Russia. Germany is crucial in this. It is

Angela Merkel's opinion that if you push Russia, it will push back, so

she doesn't want to see that happen. There are also economic and

energy reasons why the Germans might not want to see that happening, and

another couple of nations as well. Britain is more on the side of the

Eastern European states, notably Poland, who are pretty keen for

there to be a strong message to Moscow from this summit. David

Cameron said, Russia need to know there are consequences. But it is

Germany's arguments who are winning out. That means there is going to be

a divide and you will have groups of countries: The different things stop

in public, the bubbly one, because they realise these are high-stakes

-- in public, there probably won't. There is a big difference of opinion

between Poland and Germany, for instance, and yet he said, of course

we have different perspectives on this but we are united in our

belief... Ukraine must maintain territorial integrity, Russian

forces should withdraw back to their bases, etc. So I don't think in

public you are then to see any open division but behind-the-scenes, in

the room behind me, the divisions of being expressed. Yesterday, I was

telling the Tory guest that the Germans are going to stop this from

happening. They are very reticent about this.

With us now on the line from Kiev is Sergei Sobolev, he's an MP from the

Fatherland Party - that's the group that makes up most of the interim

government - and used to advise the former president Viktor Yuschenko

who came to power after the Orange revolution. Welcome to the Daily

Politics. It doesn't look like you are going to get much out of the

European summit. What does that mean for Ukraine's future? You see, just

now we have an answer on the main question. Whether all countries

guarantee for us sovereignty, independence, will support that, so

first of all, it's nuclear power states such as the US, Great

Britain, France, China, because if you will not protect our

independence, it means for all other nations, such as Iran, Pakistan,

India and others, who we need to withdraw the nuclear weapons, we

will never protect them also. So now we have two onto the main question.

Whether the nuclear power states will save peace in the world. And

this piece now is on the Black Sea, where we need real support from

these countries in order to protect our southern border from the war

that Russian invaders started. Is it not a hard fact of realpolitik that

Crimea has in effect already been annexed by Russia? It is now to all

intents and purposes Russian? Really, about the population, we

have one third of the population is Crimean and one third of the

population more is Ukrainians which will never be in the Russian

Empire. Just now, only one third of the population who are Russians,

even not all Russians, want to support the so-called referendum. If

you know just now the Parliament of Crimea announced this referendum

could not on the 25th of May, not on 30th of March, now they announce the

15th of March as the new date for the referendum. That means the

Russian invader has already fallen down. This referendum will need to

be in several days. I think the answer on the referendum will not be

illegal because we do not have such a law. In another case there will be

a referendum under their weapon that Russian invaders want to use the

main argument on this referendum together they export 130 billion

euros of exports to Russia every year. It seems they have put that as

being more important than the freedom of Ukraine from Russian

control. What do you say? I do not think so. Which is a problem of

Russia how to solve their gas and oil. -- it is a problem. Without the

solving of the problem, how to solve the gas and oil, they will never

have the economy. 87% of the Russian economy is based on oil and gas

dollars. We must understand our world is so close together that it

is not only a problem of Europe where to buy gas and oil, it is a

problem of Russians Festival. One day, of real sanctions against

Russia, it means millions of Russians will be on the streets and

they will protest against the regime of Putin, who wants to provide Third

World War. That may be true. The Russians need that foreign

currency. To do what you have just said they should do, the Germans

would need to have a stomach for the fight, the economic sanctions

fight. There is no evidence that the Merckle government has any stomach

for that fight. -- angular Merckle government. In the same position,

German supported our independence and our sovereignty in this period

of time. They must understand it is not only a question of Crimea. After

Crimea, they want to be invaders in another areas which is just on the

borders of NATO. It is only the start of the Russian Empire. I think

the whole world must understand, Crimea is not the end of this war,

it is only the beginning. When, for example, some years ago everyone

watched the events in Georgia. They thought it is not our country, it is

not our territory. Now it is Crimea. It must be the main

question, in order to protect real peace in Europe and the world.

Crimea seems to be gone, at least for now. How big is at risk is East

Ukraine from some sort of Russian incursion? I am from eastern

Ukraine. It is a serious industrial centre. Everybody provides to

support the central government in Kiev. The only way they want to

divide Ukraine, they want to have a support in the Donetsk region. You

can compare. More than 10,000 people gave support of one united Ukraine

yesterday. Near 1000 people, who had Russian flags were from Russia. They

supported the Russian Empire. I think that now it is not even a

question of eastern Ukraine. Now it is