01/09/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/09/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles