01/09/2014 Daily Politics

Good morning and welcome back to the Daily Politics

The Prime Minister is preparing to outline new measures to tackle the

threat of terrorism from British Jihadis returning from Syria and

Iraq. But are they necessary or practical?

After his shock defection and resignation last week, will Douglas

Carswell make history as the first politician to be elected as a UKIP

MP? We'll assess the prospects for the forthcoming Clacton by-election.

Is the Commons Speaker facing a full-scale mutiny from MPs over his

choice of Commons Clerk? The former Deputy Speaker tells us why

Australian Carol Mills is the wrong person for the job.

And over three million people have done it, so why shouldn't

politicians get in on the act? Keep watching to see three MPs get wet.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole of the programme on

the first day of term at Westminster are the stellar team of

former Children's Minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton, former

Labour Minister, Hazel Blears and the Liberal Democrat and former

Foreign and Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne.

Welcome to the We will see if you stay dry for the

rest of the programme. Welcome to the

And if we look a bit different this afternoon, that's

because we've relocated to the BBC's studios at Broadcasting House while

our own studio at Westminster gets a High Definition make-over. There's

something a little bit unusual about this studio and - if you want to

find out more, I'll be recording a little explainer which we'll be

putting on the Daily Politics website after the programme. So it's

been a busy summer - particularly on the international scene with

conflicts in Gaza, Iraq and the Ukraine. Parliament's back now. But

should it have been recalled? Jeremy Browne? No, I don't think so.

There is always a clamour for Parliament to be recalled and there

are times when it is necessary, when there is a big decision that needs

to be made to endorse what the Government is doing, but I don't

think there has been a single black and white decision that has required

Parliament to be recalled prematurely. Although it is good it

is now back because it gives the House of Commons the opportunity

over the next couple of weeks to discuss these matters and hold the

executive to account. Hazel Blears, any action the Government decided to

take with regard to Islamic State, should it have had the say-so of

MPs? These are really important issues and I am delighted that the

prominence that will make a full statement to the House and I am sure

it will take many hours, because many MPs will have questions but I

agree with Germany, I don't think there was a decision to put British

troops on the ground -- I agree with Jeremy. There has not been a

decision of that nature and I think we have we are now, we are looking

at new legislation, new powers, new methods to tackle British youngsters

who are going out and fighting in Syria, that is absolutely the

business Parliament but I don't think there was a point where

Parliament needed the emergency measure over the last three or four

weeks. We will discuss those emergency measures. Do you agree,

because many of your colleagues feel Parliament should have been

recalled, although many will ask what MPs would have contributed

mightily to contributed to the international situation the

Schumacher it becomes a bit of a. It becomes a bit of a contest, I think

we should have taken more action than we did. I don't think it

required Parliament to come back and condone the action needed... You are

talking about ISIS and the action needed? Yes, I think we should have

helped with the air strikes and I think the Government should have

gotten on with it, it was an urgent thing to do, as was humanitarian

aid, but boots on the ground, action as Parliament no traditionally seems

to need to have a say. should it have been recalled?

It's the conflict in Syria and Iraq that's causing the biggest headache

domestically. The brutal beheading of American Journalist James Foley -

apparently by a British-born Jihadi fighting for Islamic State - brought

into sharp focus the risks we could face here.

It's estimated that 500 British Jihadis are fighting for Islamic

State and other militant groups in Syria and Iraq, and so far 69 people

have been arrested in the UK for Syria-related activity. On Friday,

the Government raised the terrorism threat here from Substantial to

Severe and is proposing new measures to tackle the threat from

Islamist extremism. These include making it easier to remove passports

through additional temporary seizure powers at the border and stopping

British Citizens from re-entering the country if they are suspected of

terrorist activity abroad. There are fears, though, that these measure

could be against international law. leaving suspects stateless.

Meanwhile, airlines could be required to reveal the full list

of their passengers. There have also been calls for a return of control

orders, used to keep terrorism suspects under close surveillance,

and the Government has left open the possibility of supporting US air

strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

And we are joined by Haras Rafiq of the anti-extremism think tank the

Quilliam Foundation. First of all, Jeremy Browne, Ming Campbell said

yesterday, taking someone's citizenship away even temporarily

could be illegal under international law. He is right. I am not an expert

but it sounds like a convincing argument. I don't want to be set up,

if you like, as the person who is not taking this threat extremely

seriously because Hazel alluded to this and I share her concern, and I

think the concern of most people in this country, about what we are

witnessing on our television screens and what is happening across parts

of Iraq and Syria and we will see what the Prime Minister says this

afternoon. It is not necessarily the case that every response to

extremism and terrorism requires new laws, we may have the existing

legislation in place, but we do need to take this threat seriously and

should not in any way diminish the nature of the threat not to just our

country but to secular liberalism, which I think most people value. It

is the response most people will be interested in, they wanted explain

to them why somebody could go out and fight British, a British-born

Jihadi, and fight for someone? My problem is whether you can stop a

British-born person being in Britain. There are other elements

about what people are doing, whether they have broken laws, we need to

toughen those laws, whether we should be arresting people, but it

is a different issue about whether you prevent a British person from

coming to Britain and I can see there will be technical problems

with that. As the Prime Minister over egged what can be achieved? He

called this press conference on Friday, he talked about an increase

in the terror threat. Was it necessary when he hadn't actually

spoken to lawyers or coalition partners to find out what they can

actually do to stop British jihadis coming home, if that is what they

want to do? He can't win, because if he hadn't done something, people

would ask why the Government isn't doing anything. We have to look at

this carefully, it is very serious and we will hear more this

afternoon. There is a problem with international law, there are two UN

conventions, I understand, that we would breach if we leave somebody

status, but I am most concerned about knowing where these people

are, who they are, under surveillance and hopefully put under

lock and key if they have done some of the things in this country -- in

these countries. We cannot let them float around in the ether and turn

up responsible for some atrocity without us knowing. But you agree

that a British citizen can be stripped of their citizenship, be

made stateless, if you like, if they were coming back from Syria by a

turkey? What would you do with them? As I say, they would be floating

around in the ether and you can not make somebody stateless. Isn't that

what the Prime Minister and some ministers have implied they would

do? No, we have said we will look at how we can work with our partners

about what we can do with these people. Their liberty may be removed

to stop them getting involved in these atrocities in the future. What

you think should happen to a British-born person who goes out and

is known to have fought in Syria or for the Islamic State and tries to

return to Britain? First of all, we have to recognise that anybody who

does that as a British citizen has broken the law, the Terrorism Act

that came into place in 2006, when it says that anybody who fights for

a foreign entity that is in conflict with the UK has broken the law. So

we have got to look at locking those people up or charging them in an

open court, arresting them, etc. But there will be a number of people who

come back disillusioned, who may even be ready to fit back into

society. I think we need to look at, in the long we can reintegrate these

people. There is another element that has not been discussed. At the

moment, this Government is focusing on doing something with these

individuals, either making them stateless, which I is probably

illegal as well, or locking people up, and it is still dealing with

intervening with individuals once they have been identified. What this

coalition Government has not done, and I have worked with projects with

Hazel in the past, is build resilience in the community to

counter the narratives to prevent them going in the first place. How

many people to think we are talking about? The Government says around

500, is that the sort of number you would say is broadly right? 500

British-born citizens going out or could go out to fight? The reality

is we don't know, 500 is an estimate. Some MPs have said 1,500,

other experts say other numbers but the reality is we don't know,

because Turkey is one way to enter for these Jihadist, there are other

ways, some going in through Southeast Asia and disappearing

there, so we don't know who has gone all for what reason all wear, some

500 seems to be a conservative figure according to some experts.

Just bear with us there, Hazel Blears, let's pick up on this point

on individuals. Do you think control order should be brought back? Do you

agree with Ed Miliband, who I think says would like them reinstated for

people who come back here and are deemed to have committed a crime

abroad? I took the control order through Parliament and it was hugely

controversial, because... And the coalition partners did not

supported. They did not, it was fought tooth and nail, but one of

the powers in the control order is to relocate people away from their

group when they are plotting and planning. We can send people from

London to go and live in Ipswich and if you do that, police can keep a

better eye on them and you can remove them from their associates

where they are plotting. And I think if we put the power back into the

abilities we have now, it is really important. And what Haras Rafiq was

saying, I was the author of the Prevent programme, this Government

have virtually abandoned it, working in communities to stop the next

generation of young people being drawn into extremism. Give the

Government make the wrong decision getting rid of control orders? At

the time, they weren't working properly. Would you know supported?

It would depend what they look like. This is a very new and dangerous

threat. -- would you now support it? We were not having hundreds of

people going overseas to fight and this is a new situation and we must

consider everything. You are in favour of control orders being

brought back into deal with people who have committed crimes. What

should the Government do? If you are counter-terrorism minister, what

would you be advising a Labour prime minister to do? I would like to hear

from the Prime Minister a proper package. Hardly anybody has been

prosecuted under the law, can we make it broader? What about people

coming back to the intelligence services think have fought in Syria

or Iraq and they fly back from Heathrow? I would want to keep them

under the closest surveillance I could and powers in control orders

help us to do that. I sit on the intelligence committee, I know what

MI5 and MI6 can do and we have to make sure they have full powers to

keep these people under close surveillance and where they can be

prosecuted, and if they have been fighting in Syria, they have

committed a terrorist offence, they need to be prosecuted, convicted and

put in jail. But we need a much bigger plan to make sure we work

with women, young people, communities and tackle this ideology

and expose it for what a caliphate really looks like with sharia law,

and it is not anybody's idea of a great place to live, so let's have

that out in the Open and a proper debate. Would you take people's

passport away if you are suspicious of them? If you have them on a

watchlist, absolutely. The more you can prevent this, the less you have

to pick can prevent this, the less you have

up the pieces when people are radicalised. Are you, as a Liberal

Democrat, signed up to strip people of their passports? Possibly their

citizenship temporarily? We do it with football hooligans, let alone

people who are likely to go and express themselves in terrorist ways

in foreign conflicts. Look, let's see what the Prime Minister

suggests. We want to live in an open, liberal society that believes

in the rule of law. I am nervous about control orders that involve

moving people around the country, because I come as an individual,

want to live in that free country, but I take it seriously and the

Liberal Democrats take these threats seriously both in terms of the

people who have been there, and I think it would be reasonable to

detain them and interview them and see if they have broken the law, and

if they have, put them on trial, and I agree with Hazel on this point,

they are, if you like, the tip of the iceberg. There are a wider

number of people who might be sympathetic but would not go to

Syria and we need to address why they are sympathetic and explain

more widely and effectively than we are at the moment the merits and

virtues of living in an open, free, liberal, secular society. Would you

block this package of measures if control orders are at the heart of

it? My suspicion is the package of measures will be agreed by both

parties before they go to Parliament. Are the negotiations

going well? Speaker I am not a member of Parliament. The money

being cut to prevent, was that mistake? It was a programme both

guests have said was important in stopping people being persuaded by

ideology. We need to do a lot more to nip this at the source and to get

into the mind of some of these people who have come from good

families and have decent jobs and turn up on the other side of the

world with a machine gun as part of terror atrocities. Why are they

might doing this? We have to engage with the Muslim communities. Some of

the comments are helpful so that communities in this country who are

British, who have a Muslim faith, will not tolerate this and they will

be doing their bit before it takes hold in the minds. The brainwashing

of some of these young people, all of these things must come into the

mix. Are you reassured that this will happen? No. The department for

communities, local government, was tasked to tackle this ideology, to

come up with a strategy, and we are still waiting for it. It is

disturbing for me as someone involved in the task force to still

here politicians saying we have to explore why these people are doing

it. We know that. It is an ideology. If we do not tackle the ideology and

build the resilience, we will be talking in five years time about a

bigger number that have gone somewhere. There are people working

in the UK, the Muslim Brotherhood and others, who have been priming

are youngsters for decades unchallenged. Let us do something

about it. Thank you. Is it a) E-cigarettes,

b) Powerful vacuum cleaners c) Bananas over 30 centimetres

in length, or d) Nigel Farage. At the end of the show we'll see

if any of our guests knows Former Conservative MP Douglas

Carswell's decision to defect to UKIP and resign his Commons seat

came as a bombshell last week. Its shockwaves are likely to

reverberate over the coming months. A Survation poll

in the constituency suggested that David Cameron faces a humiliating

defeat in the constituency. It gave Mr Carswell and UKIP

a 40% lead over the Conservatives. It's all an unwanted distraction

for David Cameron as he tries to focus his troops on winning next

year's general election. Interviewed during a walkabout

in his constituency last Friday, Douglas Carswell explained that he

had lost faith with the Tory I answer to local people,

they are my boss. answer to them and remain

in the Conservative fold, because I want serious change,

I couldn't bear to spend the next eight or nine months

pretending that the people at the top of the Conservative Party

were prepared to give real change. I like David Cameron, he's a nice

guy, he's actually quite fun, he is quite amusing company,

which is rare for a politician. You have stabbed him in the back,

this is pretty disastrous for him, coming just a few months

before the election. I don't think I have ever

stabbed anyone in the back. Maybe I have occasionally stabbed

one or two people in the front. I think he is not serious

about change and I have put my political career on the line

and I'm saying to people in Clacton this morning if you really want

change, let's do this together. We're joined now by

UKIP's Patrick O'Flynn, Not that long ago, Douglas Carswell

said Eurosceptics should rally around David Cameron because he is

the only potential Prime Minister committed to an in-out referendum.

He is right. He was wanting to give David Cameron the benefit of the

doubt immediately after UKIP had forced him into that U-turn about an

in-out referendum being the way to go. The early part of this year,

Douglas became convinced that David Cameron not serious. And that David

Cameron was at best planning area run of the Harold Wilson cynical

duplicitous deceit of the British people. A kind of fake

renegotiation. Given rocket boosters by the establishment. He did not

find that attractive. What do you say to that? If UKIP and Douglas are

serious about wanting a referendum and Patrick thinks the Prime

Minister is not serious about renegotiation we can have a

referendum if we have a Conservative government. By doing what he has

done, he is a great thinker, I like him, but this is a serious and

bizarre error of judgement. He has made having that referendum, there

is no prospect of us not having a referendum on the future membership

of the year. By jumping ship like this, by making it less likely we

will have a Conservative government, there will be no referendum. He has

shot himself in the foot. He says he has lost faith in the Prime

Minister. He does not think there is anything in the renegotiation. He is

not alone. It is not helpful, and if that is what he thinks, it does not

matter, because he can vote now. I am part of a group and we spend a

lot of time speaking to other European politicians to see how the

prospects for renegotiation are and there are serious prospects. It is

less likely than likely we will get sufficient renegotiation successes

and if that is the case I will vote to come out, as well a lot of

Conservative MPs. I want a referendum so me and my constituents

have that choice to decide whether it has gone far enough. Doing what

Douglas has done and what UKIP are doing makes that referendum less

likely to happen. There will be many politicians who would say you are

handing the election to Labour. It is interesting that Tim came close

to saying that the Conservatives are going to lose the next election.

That is novel. I am not sure he said that. And so the question. The state

of British politics, it is a matter of trust having to be rebuilt. I

remember from three or four years ago the Conservative Party

passionately supporting the first past the post system because they

said everyone stands for what they might believe in. People have one

vote for their first choice party. They seem to think it has occurred

to them that they cannot win under their system and are trying to

impose some special duty to stand aside to minute you late the

electorate. -- manipulate. Democracy demands that we stand and fight and

offer the voters what we believe in. There have been reports of almost

100 Tory MPs going into the next election with a personal pledge to

leave the European Union. Will you do that? No. Our group is about

getting a serious renegotiation and when we have that we will decide if

it is good enough. I will vote now if that really was the issue has not

done enough. Why not make a personal pledge? To say that you will vote

no. Make a promise in the manifesto. I did not think I was in a marginal

seat, but I have said clearly that I will vote no in a referendum in

2017, which we can only get under a Conservative government, if the

reform has not gone far enough. If they did is less likely than likely

that we will get everything we need -- I think it is. We can only do

that if we have enough Conservative MPs to form a government and what

Douglas has done... His leader at the last election said they would

not stand against Conservative MPs who committed to a referendum on

Europe, and they have done that. Will you go easy on those Tory MPs

who make personal pledges in the manifesto? I am delighted to see

more and more Tory MPs are shifting their position. I remember October

2011. There were not 300 Conservative MPs supporting the

referendum, there were 81. Against David Cameron saying it was not in

the national interest. This government have no bottom line, as

we have seen on education policy. People do not trust this government.

Will you go easy on Tory candidates in seats where they have made

personal pledges in their manifestoes? Absolutely not. If they

can persuade organisations of good games, maybe at local level there

will be some going easy, that applies to different parties. Brown

is on the sceptic wing of the Liberal Democrats. We will come to

your scepticism in a moment. What about Labour? Why is Clacton not a

target seat for Labour? It used to be a Labour seat. Why are you not

going for it. Is it because you have nothing to offer the people of black

-- Clacton? The bread and butter of politics... We have a reread play of

what happened to John Major. You remember those men in striped

blazers. What do BCI again? Playing. Why is Labour not playing?

You could have tapped into a nerve of the British people around Europe

and immigration. Which you failed to do. What that says to all the other

parties we have to have answers for the British public. I hope this

by-election exposes UKIP on the NHS. They want to privatise it. They want

one tax rate for everybody. None of that comes across. You are a one

club pony. What about Roger Lord? One of the papers says, ie I'm going

to rip his throat out. I do not think anyone could see Douglas

Carswell has been parachuted into Clacton. The party followed its

rules that when there is a by-election the National executive

committee gets to vote on who the candidate should be. Those

ridiculous assertions on the NHS, it is Labour peers in the House of

Lords who wants to force charging in the NHS. UKIP stands behind the NHS.

We wanted to be a National Health Service and not a world health

service -- want it to be. We are not in favour of a flat tax but we want

to give working people a break and keeping more of their money. When

the manifesto gets written, we will know exactly. The migration figures

have not helped. Net migration has soared to 243,000 and you promise to

get it to under 100,000 by next year. We have not and it looks

unlikely. We have to look at new measures. This business about UKIP

surging in the polls, it is not just about the EU, it is about

immigration, and that is going to have to be addressed. Do you think

the pledge to get net migration to 100,000 is as bad as your pledge on

tuition fees? Could it be as bad in the election if they break it?

People will vote on what they consider to be most significant. You

never really hear Conservatives taking UKIP on on the issues. They

seemed to concede the issues. They say if you vote UKIP it is more

likely that Ed Miliband will become Prime Minister. A lot of people do

not mind whether Ed Miliband or David Cameron as Prime Minister --

is Prime Minister, it is wider. I do not think we should dismiss it as a

flash in the pan but I think we have to think imaginatively... They are

the protest party rather than you. I think they represent some values

which are not necessarily in the national interest but I think we

should discuss how to take our country in the best direction.

Rather than trying to outmanoeuvre them. Thank you.

Now, could the Commons Speaker be facing a mutiny amongst MPs?

John Bercow has upset some of them over who should be

the next Clerk of the House of Commons.

The candidate picked by a panel including the Commons Speaker

But there are doubts about her qualifications to advise MPs

Now more than 80 MPs have signed a motion demanding that Ms Mills

appear before a Select Committee before her appointment is confirmed.

The Commons Clerk isn't a high-profile role in the outside

world, but inside the Commons chamber they're pretty important.

Before the summer, I went to meet outgoing Clerk Robert Rogers

Well, I think there are two aspects to my job.

The principal constitutional adviser to the House,

and advisor on all its procedure of business - but, of course,

I have a lot of extremely able people to help me with that

but the buck on those issues does stop with me.

The other part of the job, which only I think two or three

of my predecessors would recognise as it is now,

is being Chief Executive of the House of Commons' service.

Robert Rogers there. We are joined by former Deputy Speaker Nigel

Evans. Welcome back to the Daily Politics, why is Carol Mills, the

Australian lady, the wrong person for the job? We don't know, is the

answer, but we do know there is a lot of disquiet and controversy

about the appointment. I am on the public and administration select

committee and the chairman, Bernard Jenkin, has suggested we have a

pre-appointment hearing but since that has happened, you rightly point

out that a lot of backbenchers, during recess, have signed an early

day motion showing their disquiet about this. The speaker himself now

appears to say let's have a look at the job, maybe splitting the job. So

if that is the case, clearly today when Mr Speaker makes an

announcement at 2:30 p.m., I would expect him to say that the

appointment of Carol Mills now ceases and we need to look at the

sort of job that is going to be advertised and, of course, if it is

split, it could go to anybody to apply for either the job of a Clerk

or the chief executive. And I know that all of your viewers today, it

may seem a little bit mundane and arcane and navel-gazing compared to

all of the other important issues, from terrorism to Ukraine and a

number of other issues, that are from terrorism to Ukraine and a

number of other issues, that hitting the headlines today, but most of

those issues will come before Parliament and therefore we need to

ensure that the mechanics of Parliament is absolutely right and

that is why there is so much interest here. So you are saying

that John Bercow, you expect him to climb down over the appointment that

he would like to see, Carol Mills? That that will now go and there will

be a process? I think there are so many senior, from Jack Straw to

Margaret Beckett, across Parliament, have said they are uneasy about the

process being followed and even people in Australia have questioned

whether Carol Mills is the right person for the job, but I expect

John Bird go to at least make an announcement that the whole process

has stopped -- John De Caux. It is only fair to Carol Mills as well. I

feel very sorry for her, she has been thrown into the maelstrom of a

process that has gone very adrift. What about John Virgo's judgement?

Has it gone awry? -- John Bercow. It is not his say-so alone, he had his

own committee there. I do believe he should have had one of the Deputy

Speakers on that committee. He had Lindsay Hoyle when Sir Robert Rogers

was chosen and there was no deputy when this was chosen. The deputies

deal with the Clerk on a daily basis and that is why I believe that if we

are stopping the process, looking at the mechanics, and it comes up for

re-advertising, I believe we need a deputy on that particular committee.

Do you believe the job should be split? It will cost more. Well, that

is one of the considerations that needs to be taken into account but

we do need a select committee parliamentarians to be able to look

at this particular recommendation of the Speaker, but it should be split,

and it is up to them to say yes or no. I don't believe it is the role

of the Speaker to say the Clerk's job should be split. There was a

cross-party panel, including the likes of Andrew Lansley, a former

Commons leader, Angela Eagle, from labour, and Margaret Hodge from the

Labour Party, surely they were involved? They were. But they made

the wrong decision. Information has come out since that there were

perhaps issues in Australia, where she has expertise in Administration

but no expertise at all in the Erskine May aspect of Sir Robert's

job, which is sitting in front of the Speaker and giving information

on a regular basis. That is the issue that needs to be resolved,

that if the Speaker decided to carry on with this particular appointment,

which I don't believe he will, there needs to be a pre-appointment

hearing to establish whether Carol Mills is able to do the job. If

not, we need a proper committee to look at the mechanics of the job and

start all over again. Just before you go, the defection and

resignation of Douglas Carswell has shaken things up in Clacton. The

polls suggest Douglas Carswell will run away with it, and you said to me

yesterday, a part of me thinks we should sit it out, it is a total

distraction. I said of May. I said a part! -- I said a bit of me. But the

larger part says, let's get down to Clacton and ensure we get the

referendum that all of the Tories want to see an Hazel Blears' party

is stopping us from getting. Let's get back and let the people decide.

Have you been sat on, Nigel? Not at all, Hazel! What do you think should

happen, do you think they should split the role and give Carol Mills

the executive position? I would say this is a cross-party committee with

the Speaker, it wasn't the Speaker making the decision. It is pretty

complicated, you are the Chief Executive of the House of Commons.

Robert Rogers did a pretty good job. He did, but being an expert

parliamentarian as well as chief executive is not a blend, so it may

well be that you need to split the roles. And there I said, there are

politics being used here, there are people who do not like the Speaker,

have never liked him, will never like him, and I think there has been

some politicking. I will also say, and it is just my view, I wonder if

there had been all of this furore if there was a man being appointed?

Well, are their politics here and is it because a number of your

colleagues have an axe to grind with John Bercow and it was a good stick

to beat him with? I don't think it was in this case, I think he has

been good as the Speaker, although I have some issues with some of the

things he has done, but he has overreached. I fail to see how we

have to go all the way to Australia but somebody who is not obviously

qualified for the job, to take up an important role that has been done as

a single role for many years, fantastically by Robert Rogers and

this whole issue of whether we should split the roles, very

expensive, has only come about to get the Speaker out of a hole he has

dug himself into. He is there to protect the independence of the

backbenchers against the executive but it may need the executive to

block this post to actually protect backbenchers from a Clerk who,

actually, most of us can't see why we have do have. It is nothing to do

with her being a woman or a man. If anything, the Speaker is making it

an issue, he is trying to show he is modernised by making it a woman, but

I am sure many other good women should be considered. It is not

about the sex of the person, it is about being good for the job and

Parliament needs to have confidence in the person. Talking of

confidence, is there any case to be made here, as some of your

colleagues are saying, it should be confidence in John Bercow?

It is an issue for John Bercow, if he is determined to push it

through, when there are serious concerns being raised about the

qualifications of this person and it is being done in the face concerns.

You must have a speaker a Clerk who command the confidence of the vast

majority of backbenchers -- and a Clerk. Only 85 MPs have signed this

motion, that is still a minority of MPs. It is, although, strictly

speaking, Government ministers don't sign them. But I think for people

who are watching this back home wondering what on earth we are

talking about, the crucial thing it back at delete is it is not about

Carol Mills, it is about John Bercow. I voted for John Bercow to

be the Speaker, and in many ways, he has been a breath of fresh air,

sharper than his predecessor, and I think a lot of people admire

sharper than his predecessor, and I think a some aspects of the

sharper than his predecessor, and I think a lot of people admire way he

does the job. But I think there is some wider discontent, particularly

on the Conservative benches. It is like if you go to a rugby match or a

football match, the best referees are the ones you can't remember, and

there is a widespread feeling among a lot of MPs that you don't really

want a rectory who thinks the match is all about him. So you don't like

John Bercow? No, I am trying to explain

is all about him. So you don't like John Bercow? for the benefit of your

viewers why we are talking about this obscure subject and I think

there is a feeling that the chair should be impartial and discharge

his duties in a calm and dispassionate way and people admire

aspects of what John is doing, but at the same time, sometimes think he

needs a video referee to back him up. This speaker has done

needs a video referee to back him up. This speaker has more to get

urgent questions before the House, bringing more backbenchers, we can

all agree on that. bringing more backbenchers, we can

all agree Which is what he is good at. He is offside. It is the MPs'

first week back after a six-week break and there is much to catch up

on. We will be speaking to Isabel Hardman and James Lyons, but first,

look at what is on the agenda. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister is

expected to chair the first Cabinet On Wednesday will be the first

Prime Minister's Questions The NATO summit begins in Wales

on Thursday to discuss events in Ukraine and the future role

of NATO in Afghanistan once all On Friday, the conference

season kicks off in earnest. The Greens head to Birmingham

for their annual gathering. Let's chat to Isabel and James,

welcome to the Daily Politics, first day back and all that. Isabel, the

terror measures, has there been a lot of rhetoric and in the end, the

measures won't meet what is promised? I think David Cameron had

to give his press conference on Friday to soften up the Lib Dems to

get anything agreed at all, so announcing that the threat level had

been increased and there were gaps in the armoury, as he called it,

with a way of starting negotiations with coalition partners, so it may

be that what we see is finally agree does not match up to the threat he

was describing. What about control orders, James Lyons? We have heard

on this programme and from others that micro-Labour will back them. Is

that on the agenda? I think it is firmly of the agenda, and as I

understand it, discussions are still ongoing -- off the agenda. We not

even going to see the terrorism investigation and prevention

measures, which replaced control orders, being beefed up. One of key

players back at elite powers that the Government watchdog ones is that

power to relocate suspects -- one of the key powers that the Government

watchdog ones is the power to relocate suspects, but they haven't

seen enough evidence for that. Isabel, people watching will say why

can't the Government just take dramatic action to stop British-born

jihadis coming back to this country if they have committed crimes abroad

and won't quite appreciate all really sympathise with this idea and

talk about international law and coalition negotiations, they just

want to feel safe. This is a real challenge for the Lib Dems, because

David Cameron gave that party back at elite conference on Friday, they

are neither party blocking the tough measures. -- gave that conference.

There will be talk about whether we should just be enforcing legislation

more effectively rather than passing legislation that repeats what we

already supposed to be doing, and whether we have the resources to be

able to enforce this legislation. But it can quite easily be pitched

as the Lib Dems being this nice, softy, Libertarian party who

as the Lib Dems being this nice, softy, Libertarian party do not care

about terror measures, so it softy, Libertarian party do not care

about terror measures, will be difficult for them to make that case

if that is how the debate goes. Let's move on to Douglas Carswell

and his defection, James. Let's talk about Labour losing support the

UKIP, because Nigel Farage likes nothing more than saying Labour MPs

might be about to defect. I happen to think that it is not a problem,

it is a strength for the Labour Party. It is the major card they

have got to offer big business, they can say, you don't like a lot of

what we are doing but if you stick with us, you won't have the

uncertainty of a referendum and that is very popular in boardrooms across

Britain. Is it popular with Labour MPs? There is a significant chunk of

the party that would like to see a referendum, but the Douglas Carswell

defection put into context what people have been talking about in

terms of labour. Yes, they will lose some support, they could even lose

some seeds, robber is obviously going to be a problem, but it is

nothing like the scale of the problem the Conservatives have got

-- they could lose some seats, Rotherham is a problem. Douglas

Carswell's perfectly timed defection has opened this Pandora's box.

Today, we have Tory malcontents saying they are going to put in

their election addresses and will vote to leave Europe. Whatever he

negotiates, you have Conservative Home making helpful suggestions,

which of course are nothing of the sort, and you have Chris Kelly, an

MP who many won't have heard of, but he is the ninth member of the 2010

intake who has said he is standing down at the next election. He is not

defecting to UKIP but has wished Douglas Carswell all the best on the

way out the door. David Cameron is in a real pickle and the idea he can

draw a line under Europe at the Party Conference by saying I will

take Britain had if I don't get the right deal, Pat has gone and I don't

see how they will put the genie back in the bottle. Isabel, it is a

nightmare for David Cameron? Yes, as James says, the Labour Party are in

a position of strength and the pressure has not increased just on

David Cameron to increase the detail on his Europe plan, but he has to

show he has a plan to reunite the right politics and I don't think he

does. And the quieter he stays on that, the more agitated his MPs will

become as they see UKIP threatening their constituencies and they see

Douglas Carswell potentially winning the Clacton by-election. There will

be more and more pressure on him to reconcile those members of his party

he has lost. If you want to vote

in local or general elections you have to be on the electoral

register, but the way that register A new system is being brought in to

cut fraud, but there are concerns it People talk about our country's

long slog to build a democracy in To exercise that right we have

constructed an electoral roll For many years that was done

for us on a property basis with those eligible to vote registered

by the rather antiquated idea After next year's general election,

in a bid to make sure elections are absolutely protected from the risk

of fraud, it is down to you. We only have one practical example

of where individual registration was introduced, and that was in

Northern Ireland just over ten years ago, and as a direct result 10.5%

of people disappeared The political parties

went ballistic. The Labour government of

the day spent several years trying The impact

in the one instance we have had in the UK where this has been

introduced is quite significant and the critics of the present system

have said if you did that before a general election it would be

chaos. The risk of being accused of cooking

the books are why total individual registration has been postponed

until after the general election. Should those who want to vote get

up, take responsibility If you can't be bothered, should you

complain and does it matter if those I think it would be ideal if people

took some responsibility The turnout is

so low anyway that it would be good You want it to be

representative and catch everyone. You probably want to have a

quite strong communications message around it and say it and say it and

say it again. It is a shame for the proportion of

people who go out and make a vote. Getting as many people

as possible out there to vote and It is youngsters at universities who

used to be registered by the university that Brighton's Green

MP, who secured a sizeable student In the past universities

block registered students. Now students will have

to register themselves. That may not sound like a big deal

but when you're first coming to a new place away from home perhaps for

the first time, overwhelmed by the many things happening in your first

few weeks at university, bothering to work out how to register to vote

probably isn't top Ensuring that is not an issue is

the responsibility of local electoral officers

and local authorities who hold the register, and they will be expected

to publicise and drive through the There is a requirement on them

to carry out certain processes. We will be monitoring them and

if we do not think they are taking prompt action we will be

following up with them and giving them support to do what they need to

do, and ultimately we can take With turnouts ever lower and

concerns of democratic deficit, turning that tide with this change

may be harder than you'd think. We're joined from Westminster

by Katie Ghose of the campaigning She is also a member of the Labour

party. Is it not up to individuals to get

themselves registered and if they cannot be bothered that is their

loss? You are right. The big changes going from households to

individuals. A lot of young people I have spoken to do not know they have

to get themselves on the register and that is why we are so passionate

about getting registration in schools. We want to see same-day

registration so people can turn up to the polling station, register and

vote in one day. We would also like to see other innovations they help

people so when you are in touch with public services, applying for a

passport, or a driving licence, or sorting out council tax, you can

register to vote. It is individual responsibility, but let us see that

as a something we can help each other to do? How worried are you

about the potential for drop-off? We heard if it is going to move from

households are individuals that many people will not do it. We are very

worried because it is not logical. We are talking about millions of

people who could lose their say. We want to see local authorities, they

are doing a lot of work already, it is their responsibility, but

political parties can play their part. This is about information and

awareness and everybody having a role to play. If the Electoral

Commission doing enough to publicise it? The Electoral Commission have a

vital road because they can do their nationwide advertising -- vital

role. There will be online registration which will help

enormously. That could open the door to a further registration revelation

to find modern ways of getting the ball on the register. The challenge

after that has defined the challenge and motivation and trust in politics

-- getting people on the register. Katie mentioned local authorities.

Their budgets are being squeezed. Do they have the resources to focus on

some sort of publicity campaign? Yes, the bottom line for me is we

have to have a system with integrity. All of us want to feel

that it was done properly and applied equally to everybody and

there was no fraud. Are you worried? I am sympathetic to individual

registration but there is an act issue was trying to get people on

the register and in my constituency there are people not on the

register. Local authorities have a role to play. Would the innovations

be a good idea? Some are more problematic than others but some

would work well. That is a wider oneness on all of us, and you are

doing it on this programme, to remind people of their civic

obligations. Are you worried about it? Is Labour worried about losing

votes purely because many of their supporters will not be registered

because of the transfer from household to individual? As a

champion of democracy I am worried about it, the Labour Party is

worried and the other parties will be worried. It is very often some of

the poorest people, people living in inner cities, less likely to be

registered, and the essence of a democracy is that everybody has

their say. If you are getting millions of people not registering,

and democracy is undermined and we think probably that may be up to 5

million people will not be registered because if you do it by

household it is the head of the household who takes the

responsibility. It is old-fashioned. I remember houses were swimming with

polling cards of people who no longer live there when I was a

student. The risk of fraud or losing those people. Fraud is a big issue

but we have to enthuse people to vote. The last election 65% of the

population bothered to vote. 18-24 -year-olds, voting for the first

time, the figure was 43%. Most young people did not bother to vote. We

have made it easier to go and vote. We are going to make it easier to

register by doing it online. You can take a horse to water but you cannot

make it went? The challenge is to restore confidence in politics.

Going out to vote means something and can make a difference. 78% of

people previously turned up to vote for a general election.

It's a summer charity craze that's filled

Everyone seems to have got in on the act, and politicians have

Here's a few doing the ice bucket challenge.

To you all that challenged me, I do not think it is presidential for me

so I am simply going to write you a cheque.

That cheque is from me, I didn't want to ruin my hairstyle.

I think some of these politicians enjoy at too much. -- enjoy it. I am

on College Green getting wet, which is an occupational hazard in my

business. MPs throwing stuff at themselves is a good way to start

the term. I have three willing victims who have agreed to do it

live on air. Who are you doing this for? Crazy Hats in Wellingborough. I

nominate Jean-Claude Juncker. I am doing at forming Mellencamp so. --

doing it for Macmillan Cancer. Motor neuron disease Association. I am

nominating Jeremy Brown, William Hague, even wear and Calum Norton,

the apprentice in my office. We have not made it easy for them. Take your

pockets. -- buckets. Go for it! That is called Max. I thought it would

be. Sometimes I love my job. Do we have to do this with you? You

have a cup of water. Jeremy Brown is looking nervous.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

a) E-cigarettes, b) Powerful vacuum cleaners,

c) Bananas over 30 centimetres in length, or d) Nigel Farage.

Nigel Farage holding a banana. With a vacuum cleaner. It is vacuum

cleaners. Yes. Why? It does not make it easy for itself. It is to save

energy. Do you think there's going to be a rush of people buying them?

It is also late. You cannot buy a Dyson for love nor money.

The One o'clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow.