17/11/2015 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

There's more money for the spies at GCHQ

in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

But as George Osborne agrees billions of pounds worth

of cuts elsewhere how hard will he hit the police budget?

There's trouble brewing for Jeremy Corbyn as he questions the

right of the British police to shoot to kill a heavily-armed terrorist

and wonders whether the air strike targetting Jihadi John was legal.

Is this how a Labour Leader should react to a terrorist outrage?

At least one of the Paris attackers is alleged

to have entered the European Union posing as a Syrian refugee.

Is it time to close the EU's borders in the face of the terrorist threat?

And how to counter extremism here in the UK.

How do we guard against the threat of more home-grown terrorism?

And with us for the whole of the programme today is the former

Chief Crown Prosecutor in the North West of England, Nazir Afzal.

First this morning, how should an opposition leader

react to events like the terrorist atrocity in Paris?

Well, yesterday, the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

did a round of broadcast interviews in which he was asked about security

But some of his comments have gone down badly with his own MPs.

In a BBC interview yesterday, Mr Corbyn warned I was not happy with

the police policy of shoot-to-kill with a terror attack. He warned any

such policy could be dangerous and counterproductive. In a separate

interview, the Labour Leader questioned the legality of the drone

strike which is thought to have killed the terrorist known as Jihadi

John. He said, I'm awaiting an explanation where the legal basis

was for that incident. Mr Corbyn's links to Stop the War Coalition.

Particularly after the article at the weekend in which a group

insisted Paris had reaped the whirlwind of western support for

extremist violence in the middle east. Last night, an MP told the BBC

I've never seen a PLP meeting with that ding rye of discontent voiced.

Question after question, each devastating. He was reported to have

been criticised by prominent MPs on shoot-to-kill. Dan Jarvis on his

Jihadi John comments. What he said about reconsidering air strikes in

Iraq by John Woodcock. To add to the Labour Leader's woes. This morning,

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said it is perfectly reasonable for

police to shoot those who are a threat to life.

She is now looking at ways of tackling Europe's refugee crisis.

You reportedly asked Jeremy Corbyn last night for reassurance the

Labour Party would continue to support shoot-to-kill. That means

the police can shoot terrorists when they pose an immediate threat to

life. Has he given you that assurance? My point is we've a long

standing legal framework which allows for the use of lethal force

in situations where you have imminent threat to life. Terrorists

on the streets killing people. That, I think, that legal framework is

important and needs to continue. I understand there's been reports in

the papers today Jeremy has confirmed he also supports that now.

I think, obviously I disagree with what he said yesterday. He said I'm

not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general. It is quite

dangerous and can often be counterproductive. Was he wrong?

You've very serious threats. If people are being killed, you saw,

think of what happened in the Bataclan. If you think about the

kinds of terrorists we are dealing with, suicide pommers and so on,

there are times when the police need to make mayor own operational

decision -- suicide bombers. The police have to make the decisions

about those circumstances and when in those circumstances lethal force

is justified. I think everybody would expect that when you want to

protect innocent lives and are dealing with this kind of threat.

Understanding everyone's confirmed that continues to to be our

position. It needs to be. Just to be clear, in your mind, Jeremy Corbyn,

has he personally said to you, Yvette Cooper, you wanted a

reassurance about this, I do support the police's shoot-to-kill policy in

those circumstances? No, I haven't spoken to him today. Would you like

that reassurance in such a sensitive time. If there was any people were

misconstruing what he meant that he's clear about it? It is good to

have clarity. But, let's be honest, Jo, this is so important and so

serious I don't want this to be about who said what to who. He's the

leader of Her Majesty's opposition. My understanding is this remains the

Labour Party's policy. I'm clear it has to remain Labour's policy

supporting the police and security services in a very difficult job

which they need to be able to do to keep us all safe. There are always

safeguards with the use of lethal force. There have to be

investigations whenever it's used, when that happens. You have to be

able to keep people safe. It is important that we should continue to

support that. Hilary Benn said this morning. Shoot-to-kill policy was

perfectly reasonable. In your mind, they are now one, oven though 24

hours ago, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Labour Leader

seemed to hold different view points? I'm not a member of the

Shadow Cabinet. I can't speak for Jeremy on this. You heard those two

views? You've heard my view clearly. Jeremy Corbyn also came under fire

last night at the meeting of Labour MPs because of hi associations with

the stop of war coalition. There was a recent blog post now deleted

saying Paris was reaping the whirlwind of western foreign policy.

Jeremy Corbyn was chair of the Stop the War Coalition. Should he

distance himself from stop the war? What they said was appalling.

Clearly, nobody thinks it was Paris or France that was responsible for

what happened. It was terrorists who were responsible. At a time when so

many people are grieving for those they have lost and for the attack to

our way of life as well. I think it is really important we show

solidarity for the people of Paris and France. That's what the Labour

Party was doing yesterday in Parliament. That's what people

across Britain will be doing tonight when we have the England v France

game as well. Should he distance himself further? He's due to speak

at a Christmas fund-raising for Stop the War Coalition. It's not what I

would do. Jeremy has to speak for himself. Sure, but as a member of

the Labour parliamentary party, are you happy to see him speak for Stop

the War Coalition? Jo, I don't think anybody should be associated with

statements like that. They are appalling. There is a wider issue

about the very serious threat in terms of extremism and the challenge

from Isis to Europe and Britain and how we respond. We have to respond

by having stronger security. That sense of solidarity. Not allowing

terrorists to divide us. Not allowing them to pick us apart. They

want to sew fear, division and hatred. That's the real challenge.

Europe has a lot more to do to be able to respond to this threat. As

you say, you want to see a united front in terms of the response to

what happened in Paris and to terrorism around the world. What do

you make then of Jeremy Corbyn's statement it would have been far

better if Jihadi John had been arrested rather than hit by a drone

strike? We know in these circumstances, it wasn't possible to

arrest him. Was that statement naive in your mind or misguided? I think,

Jo, there's a wider issue here about what it is that Europe needs to do.

That is what we should be talking about. Further security measures

that need to be taken, the support the Government needs to put in place

and is rightly doing in terms of support for the intelligence and

security agencies. They need to go further in terms of support for

neighbourhood policing. That local intelligence is immensely important

and prevention work. The scale of cuts to policing would be the wrong

approach. I hoe they are now rethinking that. This had is the

wider European co-operation that needs to take place. Including

dealing with the refer ghee crisis which is being exploited by

terrorists as well. Right, but, it does come back to the leader of

opposition being clear and representing the views of the

parliamentary party. Are the events in Paris likely to change your

party's position, or should they, on air strikes in Syria? I think the

thing we've still not seen from the Government is actually any proposal

on Syria. I've backed and I think the Labour Party is right to back,

the air strikes at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi

Government against Isis in Iraq. The challenge with Syria is it is much

more complicated because of President Assad and many of the

refugees are also fleeing from Assad. It is clear the Prime

Minister is not going to bring forward a proposal until and unless

he has the support of enough MPs, not only on his own side but

particularly from Labour. Should Labour now get behind some sort of

proposal or not if it comes forward to bomb IS in Syria? I think it

entirely doo depends on what the proposal is. We've not seen a

proposal. You have to look at the consequences of any proposal. Have a

comprehensive strategy to deal with the conflict, the wider civil war in

Syria. We've not seen that. We are still waiting for the Government to

come forward with any proposals. Should be it be a free vote? Depends

on the proposal. Many of us will make our decisions based on what is

the right thing to do. What was the atmosphere like? We've heard from

the Labour MPs after that meeting in the House of Commons. Some of the

backbenchers felt it was the worst meeting they'd ever witnessed in

terms of response to Jeremy Corbyn's views on Jihadi John, talking about

shoot-to-kill and on air strikes in Syria. What do you say? I think, if

this is a meeting for the parliamentary Labour Party that the

press are not invited to. But Labour MPs come out and... I'm not talking

about the details. I've told you my views on the issues around the use

of Leith at force in the face of a terrorist threat, you have to be

strong and firm. And the issues I've disafreed with Jeremy on. I can tell

you that. It would not be right for me to talk about the kinds of

meetings and discussions that take place. Again, I still come back to,

I think, the wider issue for us as a country. This is not simply about

one meeting of a Parliamentary Labour Party. This is the wider

challenge for Britain and for Europe which I don't think we are yet

meeting and yet responding to given the pressures we face. It will lead

to the Conservative charge saying Labour cannot be trusted to keeping

the country safe and that will stick according to the Prime Minister,

George Osborne as long as Jeremy Corbyn leads Labour? I don't think

that is the view of the Labour Party. Yesterday, you heard Andy

burn hum responding to -- Andy Burnham responding to Theresa May

about her support for the security agencies. We'll stand firm with the

Government about that. We have to. It is about making people safe and

keeping them safe. Part of that is about standing up against the

divisions the terrorists seek to sew. Making sure you can take action

to prevent extremism and terrorism. You mentioned the cuts to police

funding and extra spending going to spies and intellingence services.

George Osborne said he'll double the funding against cybercrime. Should

Labour match that pledge? Yes, absolutely right to. This is the new

kind of threat that we also face in terms of the cyber attack. It is an

important threat to Britain. I think the wider thing about making sure

you have that intelligence about where imflint threats might be --

imminent threats might be. That's about sharing information across

Europe. What do you make of Nigel Farage's comments last night? That

the UK Muslim population has conflicted royalties? It is an

appalling thing to say. The Muslim community were one of the first to

be out condemning the appalling bash rich in Paris. -- barberism in

Paris. Muslims in Beirut who have experienced the brunt of the Isis

attack and brutality, many of whom are fleeing from that brutality as

well. It is Muslim parents in Britain who are seeking to make sure

that their children are not being groomed and radicalised as well.

Isis is a perversion of Islam. I think the problem with what Nigel

Farage said is, this is playing into the hands of extremists by going

along this track of trying to divide us and pit us against each other

when we should stand firm against such extremism. Just to go back to

the initial questions on shoot-to-kill. Are you clear in your

mind now with what has been said by Labour, they are happy to support

the shoot-to-kill policy in general? I agree with Yvette. The view, I've

spent 25 years telling police how they should behave. Their

operational matters are up to them. We have the best armed officers in

the world. They rarely use firearms. They should be doing their job, awe

Lou them without politicians interfering in their jobs. What

Yvette said about terrorism, set to divide, we need clarity from the

Labour Party about what they want to do on this subject. These terrorists

don't represent Islam or anybody. We need Labour Party to say this is

something we should do about them. Now, Belgium has raised

its terror alert this morning as the hunt continues for the surviving

perpetrators of Friday's attack in Paris and their accomplices. The

Government here is setting out its In a speech at the Mansion House

in the City of London last night, the Prime Minister said Britain

must summon the spirit of World War II if it is to defeat what

he called the Isil thugs. It's not just about the amount of

money we spend or the size of our forces, it's also about our ability

to deploy them quickly, with the We've seen how vital drones are

in the fight against Isil. So, with this extra money,

we're doubling our fleet of drones. We know we need the ability

to carry out air strikes. So this money will provide

for more fighter aircraft. We want to increase the capabilities

of our brilliant special forces. There will be

a ?2 billion programme of new We will maintain our continuous

at sea nuclear deterrent. We'll also invest in

a new generation of cyber defences to block and disrupt attacks before

they can harm our United Kingdom. This morning, the Chancellor, George

Osborne, has been visiting GCHQ in Cheltenham, where he's been warning

against the danger of so-called Islamic State launching a cyber

attack, and promised millions of pounds of extra funding

for the security services Isil's murderous brutality has

a strong digital element. At a time when so many others are

using the internet to enhance freedom and give expression to

liberal values and creativity, Isil are already using

the internet for hideous propaganda purposes, for radicalisation,

for operational planning too. They have not so far been able to

use it to kill people by attacking our infrastructure

through cyber attack. They do not yet have

that capability. and we know they're doing

their best to build it. So when we talk about tackling Isil,

that means tackling their cyber threat as well

as the threat of their guns And earlier this morning,

the Chancellor announced that he has provisionally agreed cuts with

another seven government departments ahead

of next week's spending review. Those are the Cabinet Office,

the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices,

HM Revenue and Customs and both the Work and Pensions and Energy

and Climate Change departments. They've all agreed to reduce

spending by 6% a year which adds up to a real-term

reduction of 21% by 2019/20. The Chancellor has now reached

provisional agreements with over half

of Whitehall departments totalling more than ?4 billion of savings

by the end of the Parliament. And Adam Fleming has more

on the Chancellor's announcement. So, is he well on the way to getting

the savings he wants? Let's look at the numbers. As you said, the

Chancellor has now reached a preliminary agreements of about ?4

billion worth of savings. But he said earlier this year that he wants

to reach a total of ?20 billion of savings by 2020. So far be it from

me to say how he is doing, but let's compare the four we have got with

the 20 wants to get at the end of this process. You're right that even

though he has settled with more than half of the government departments

in Whitehall, in 11 out of 20, that means they're still some big

spenders who he has not done a deal with - the Home Office, the MoD, the

health department, the NHS budget, which he says he will increase, but

we are not sure by how much and when. And as usual with the spending

review, we are getting big numbers, but not a lot of detail. For

example, the Chancellor was saying today that the money saved by HMRC

will come from the digitisation of tax collection. No more detail than

that. Interestingly, today shows that there was an end to the dispute

between George Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith. The welfare secretary

was concerned that his budget for universal credit was going to be

ready to pay for the delay in tax credits, and he threatened to

resign. It looks like that threat has gone away, because they have

done a deal. There was also an announcement of more money for the

intelligence services, which has come after the Paris attacks. But

cuts to police funding? Yes, the police forces in England are

expecting big cuts to their budget. Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commission

of the Met, is saying he expects cuts over the next five years of up

to ?800 million, which means he would have to sack maybe 5000 police

officers in London, which sounds like a lot. That is how the Police

Federation see it. They represent the rank and file and they have

released a statement saying that cuts of that level would jeopardise

their ability to protect the public in the UK in the event of a Parisian

style terrorist attack. This issue is starting to creep into the House

of Commons. Yesterday, after the Home Secretary made her statement

about the Paris attacks, a couple of Tory backbenchers started making

noises along those lines, that they were worried about the budgets for

things like community policing. It was interesting that when George

Osborne was answering questions after his speech at GCHQ today, he

kept quiet about the idea of whether he would be protecting or cutting

police budgets. The Conservative MP, Tom Tugenhadt,

is here with us now. Let's talk about those potential

cuts to policing, which Bernard Hogan-Howe says would cut front line

policing. Is that what we should be doing at a time like this? It is

staggering. I have worked with police up and down the country and I

have worked with the prosecution service for 25 years, and all those

agencies Arlene. There is nothing more they can give. -- and they

Arlene. The back-office operation has been decimated. What were

talking about extremism, the best eyes and ears of the community

officers, the PCSOs, and I'm hearing that all of these police officers

are talking about cutting those numbers. That is putting people at

risk. We cannot have a situation where public safety is diminished in

this way. According to Nazir Afzal, if those who are the eyes and ears

on the street time when terrorism is on heightened alert, it would be a

mistake. Should your government be cutting police numbers? We must work

together on this. Terrorism is not an issue solely for the security

forces, be it the military or GCHQ or the police, nor is it the job of

the community alone. It is the job of everyone to work together. What

is particularly important is, when young men, and sadly, it is

particularly young men, are getting radicalised in different parts of

our community, it is essential that community leaders are families,

relatives and friends highlight this. There is no way we can put a

policeman on every street corner, and nor would we want to. So we have

to engage with the community more closely, and we have to remind the

community that they also have a responsibility in protecting their

young men and women from these people. The most trusted police

officers are those who work in those communities. People do not win

counterterrorism helplines, they talk to an officer that they

recognise and trust. If they are not there, we will not get that

information. They are there. But you are going to cut them if the

proposal goes through that George Osborne has put through the cuts to

unprotected departments like the Home Office. Should they be cut? I

am not going to tell the police commissioners for the whole of

England, Wales and Scotland how to do their jobs. It is for them to

prioritise. I am asking you about George Osborne. You are asking if

they should cut individual officers. It is not for me to tell police

commissioners how to do their jobs. That is why we have police and crime

commissioners who will be elected next year to prioritise the

allocation of resources. Nazir is right that community engagement is

the front line of defence against terrorism, but that is not alone.

The community police officers stand with the community. The community

have a fundamental response ability, because we police by

content in this country. We are not a bitter Tory or state. We need

community leaders, be they imams or leaders of community groups or be

they family and friends, we need that to be the eyes and ears,

because they are protecting themselves and us as citizens. Is

that because there will not be enough police? I must get an answer

from you on whether you think, in the wake of the Paris attacks,

should Lord Osborne rethink his cuts to police funding? I have taken your

point that it is up to police commissioners to decide response

booties, but Bernard Hogan-Howe says he would have to cut up to 5000

officers. He did not say that, the federation said that. It is up to

Bernard Hogan-Howe. On LBC, he said it is a massive change and as a

result, I worry about the safety of London. We think we may lose up to

8000 police officers. I did not hear that interview, I only heard it

reported by the federation. It is up to Bernard Hogan-Howe to decide how

to allocate the resources he has. I will not lecture him on how to do

it. I welcome that he said he will put more police on the streets of

London, and I particularly welcome the investment in intelligence,

because if you want to address this, intelligence is fundamental. Why is

it more important for intelligence to get funding than the police on

the streets? It is a combination. But you are giving more to one and

taking money from the other. No, we are addressing different aspects.

The intelligence services have been underinvested in and I welcome the

Chancellor's investment, because a lot of this problem is coming from

overseas. We have spoken about Syria in the past. The actions of foreign

criminals in lecturing, preaching and spreading hate through the cyber

highways is a serious threat. I can only take from you that you agree

that there should be some cuts and that the police will have to manage

their resources. One of the points that Tom Tugenhadt said was that

even if you put a lease officer on every corner of every street -- a

police officer, they had lots in Paris before the attacks, but it

will not stop this sort of terrorism if they are soft targets. Well, they

have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time. But it is a

postcode lottery. In Bristol, they have done good work in local

community engagement. One terrorist was grassed up by the local mosque.

That is the kind of information that comes from having good

relationships. If we do not have the officers to have those relationships

with, I worry about the future. You make it sound as though the only

person with whom the mosque can have the relationship is the police.

Nobody is talking about removing that. There is a series of people

with whom we engage every day. I have people coming into my

constituency surgery, raising different issues. Raising issues

like this is essential across the community. But intelligence has to

turn into evidence. Somebody cannot just say, -- somebody has to say, I

have seen something, I will raise evidence against that individual. It

cannot happen if there are fewer police. I do not accept that.

The UK Parliament's all-party group for Kurdistan has been visiting

the Peshmerga in Iraq just a few miles from the front line

The Labour MP John Woodcock was part of that group of MPs.

We will speak to him in a moment, but first let's take a look

It's been a real privilege to be taken out here by the Commander

They make the point to us that they are getting essential air support

from the UK, from the RAF, and training and advice from the UK

But they are desperately short of kit.

They know that if they fail in this fight and Daesh continue,

ultimately, it will be foreign fighters who will

be going back to the UK to take what they've learned here, the extremism,

military tactics, back to countries such as the UK.

It's a huge privilege to be able to see this, but the UK

That is the stark message they have asked us to take back to the UK.

Remind us who the Kurds are and the areas of land they inhabit and the

fronts they are fighting is on? The Iraqi Kurds are in the north of

Iraq. They were systematically persecuted in the most vile ways by

Saddam Hussein. After the liberation, is based in it, of Iraq

from Saddam, there were given a semi-autonomous devolved region

within Iraq. Their military force, the Peshmerga, are the troops who

are fighting. They are a proficient force and it was a privilege to see

what they were doing on the front line. I hope that broadcasting what

we saw back to the UK helps dispel the understandable misconception

that there is nothing going on in Iraq except for the odd bomb being

dropped by the RAF. You could see that just a few kilometres away from

the Daesh front line, the Peshmerga rely on the protection in the air

cover that the RAF give. They are fighting a difficult fight and they

hope for more from the UK and other nations.

We're going on to the proposal air strikes if it comes before the

Commons in a moment. The Kurds neat more kit. David Cameron said last

year Britain would arm the Kurds. Did you see evidence of that? They

have some. But the message again and again was they are really lacking.

Actually, they say to us in stark terms, we are grateful for the UK's

involvement. They kept repeating how grateful they were. That we were

part of the coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein. But actually, the UK

is giving amongst the least in terms of resources for their fight. I

think the reluctance from the Foreign Office, from the UK

Government, is that it doesn't end up fuelling destab I willisation in

the region. Particularly Turkey. When you look into this closely, you

need to be honest, there isn't really a functioning state called

Iraq at the moment. That has broken down into a Baghdad Government run

by a Shia force which isn't representing the Sunni and the

Kurdish areas. There does need to be change. In the near term, I think

it's so important these people, they make the case, they're fighting on

all our behalf. If they don't win this fight, then foreign fighters

can go back into countries like the UK and we need to support them

better than we have been doing. What about another vote in the House of

Commons on air strikes over Syria? Would you like to see that brought

forward now? Iity it's important we do more. I've always said being in

Iraq, being part of that operation, but not going over what is a purely

theoretical border, is illogical. We said it is legal to do so. Provide

logistical support. Where it is important David Cameron comes

forward today, hopefully, as soon as possible, is in the sense of how

this military involvement fits in with a wider diplomatic engagement

where we cannot allow to happen to beat back Daesh but leave the vacuum

which we left that Daesh was able to fill in the Sunni regions of Iraq.

To be clear, you would back a proposal that David Cameron brought

forward to say we need to use British military force, not much of

it, but British military force to bomb IS is Syria or do agree with

Hilary Benn about having strict pre-conditions before supporting it

You would have to see the exact detail. My sense is yes, I would

back even that limited increased incursion by the RAF strikes over

the border into and ultimate targeting Raqa which is the head of

extremists, the HQ. I think many of my colleagues will want to see more

in terms of diplomatic effort before they do that. I want to see it as

well. But even if it is the limited proposal, there will be several of

us whether will be prepared to back that. Are there any circumstances in

which the UK can participate without a Commons vote? That is a wider

question. That will have consequences right across a number

of military involvement. I think for this engagement, clearly, I don't

think there is a prospect of that. Whether we would relook after this

about the balance that has changed over the last ten years, well, that

may be worth doing. Clearly, the Prime Minister is clear that he will

not proceed in a substantive way with direct involvement without a

vote. That's the reality we are looking at. What do you make of the

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn's association with stop of the war

coalition? There seems to be unhappiness from some of your

colleagues particularly following the blog post where Stop the War

Coalition were reaping the whirlwind of return foreign policy. What would

you say about Jeremy Corbyn's association with Stop the War

Coalition? I've always been troubled by his association. That blog post

was striking not from the fact it was coming from left field and

unusual from the organisation. That is the message they've given all

through. We have to call this for what. Blaming the people of France

or the French Government or the UK Government for the killing of French

or UK civilians is akin at the time of the Second World War, blaming the

Jewish people for their deaths under the Nazis. It is that serious. I

really hope Jeremy and others will make clear they will not accept any

of that sentiment within the British Labour Party. John Woodcock, thank

you. Now, the Home Secretary,

Theresa May, has said Britain would take 20,000 Syrian refugees over

the next five years, and Our correspondent

James Shaw is there. James, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

We expect the refugees to arrive at Glasgow airport within the next

couple of hours. A plane will touchdown on the apron behind me.

The refugees will be kept airside. They won't come through to the

terminal. They will be processed in a lounge here. We expect there will

be representatives of about five our six Scottish local authorities who

will take them to a hotel, brief them and then take them on to their

perhaps long-term accommodation. But it's being done in this discreet way

because these are deemed to be vulnerable people under this

vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. We will not see them in

public at this stage. They will be allowed to start their new lives in

the UK discreetly and out of the public eye. Yes, difficult, of

course, in the wake of what's been going on over the past few days. Are

more expected? More Syrian refugees from those camps expected in

Glasgow? That's right. We're expecting between 300 and 400 before

Christmas. That's a pretty big proportion of the total of 1,000 for

the UK before Christmas. Probably over a third will come to Scottish

local authorities. I was talking to people in the terminal building a

couple of minutes ago, asking them what they thought about the arrival

of these refugees. There was a quite a lot of scepticism on the grounds

where we hear people complaining about schools and hospitals being

overstretched at the moment. There was that argument, but also concerns

over what happened in Paris. People worrying who is coming into the

country. It is the case these people, these refugees, have been

given a double security screening before they arrive in the UK. So

clearly the authorities are content that they do not represent any sort

of security threat. James Shaw, you that.

Now, lying next to the body of one of the men who blew themselves up

outside the Stade de France last Friday was a Syrian passport.

It belonged to a man who Greek officials have confirmed passed

through Greece along with the thousands of migrants.

So-called Islamic State had threatened to place jihadis amongst

fleeing refugees and some, including Ukip leader Nigel Farage,

believe this is exactly what has happened and that this security

This dream of the free movement of people,

this dream for others of the Schengen area

hasn't just meant the free movement of people,

it's meant the free movement of Kalashnikov rifles.

It's meant the free movement of terrorists.

And it's meant the free movement of jihadists.

And it's time that democratic groups in Britain and right across Europe

stood up and fought and gained in strength and said

"An end to this. We want back border controls.

Here now is Peter Whittle, the Ukip candidate for London Mayor.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Is Nigel Farage cynically using the

Parisse tax to try to forward Ukip's domestic agenda? Absolutely not.

There's no question about this. This is a hugely political issue. So,

political response is necessary. I find it extraordinary people say

that this is being exploitative. Nigel's speech last night, I was

there, was hugely nuanced and positive in some of the messages it

put out. People want and need to talk about this situation. There

were 1,000 people there last night. Everyone wants to talk about one of

the most serious issues facing us. What you don't do, is somehow avoid

it or deny things are happening. Right One of the quotes, some

British Muslims, Nigel Farage said, are conflicted in their loyalties

between the UK way of life and what some elements within their faith are

telling them. Do you agree with that? I would say there is a large

amount of truth in that. I have to point out, Nigel used one example.

27%, in other words, he was not talking about all Muslims in

Britain, he was talking about a small amount of Muslims who showed

after the Charlie ebb doe attacks early this year in Paris, there was

a significant support, about 27%, for the motives of those killers.

That is very worrying indeed. We have to face up to those things. It

is up to us to put forward a much stronger narrative as to why people

should have their allegiance first and foremost to this country. What

do you say to that? I don't believe British Muslims are kin flected. You

don't love your first child any less because you have your second. The

vast majority of Muslims feel very British, want their families safe.

Don't want anything to do with Isis. It is a cult created by Saddam

Hussein's hench men. They are scared of them as we are. We shouldn't

confuse migrants with refugees. We are talking -- taking rev fees from

Jordan. Properly vetted. Victims of rape, torture, brutality. No-one's

arguing about that. That's the right way to do it. Nigel Farage said

there would be Jihadis secreted within the fleeing refugees from

Syria. That would be a threat. He's not the only one who said it. Elecon

ease ministers said it. But at the time, if you said this at the time

when this huge migration started, you were pretty much dismissed. But

he was right. Was he right? Nigel Farage? There are genuine fears when

you see those pictures of the vast numbers of people coming from that

war-torn area in the middle east that surely there is a very high

risk that it would be an op or tune way to smuggle Jihadis in. I trust

our vetting processes. We are the British. Into Europe, continental

Europe? Paris is where the attacks happened. Angela Merkel has opened

the doors, to some people's minds, Ian her own ministerial Cabinet, it

is the wrong thing to do. All the French terrorists were French born

and lived in France or Belgium. It is a red herring. There will be

people who go under the cloak of whatever process there is to get in

to carry out their nefarious acts. That's our job, the British security

services and policing job to make sure that doesn't happen. None of

the the attackers were British. Associating those terrorists in any

way with the three million or so Muslims in Britain will be or could

be seen as provacative or unnecessarily stirring up emotion?

Absolutely not. I totally reject this. It is not like we haven't been

affected by this ourselves. We had Lee Rigby virtually decapitated. We

had 7/7. We've had attacks. From home-grown terrorists. Yes. But you

can't con Nate in a way the two issues when they are broadly born of

the same cause. The trust is to say that it's red herring that just one

came from outside France, I find extraordinarily complacent you can

say that. Far from complacent. There may be a forged passport. They'll

find out where he comes from. Whether he came through the

migration route. But we, as security forces, we as Britain's, will have

the opportunity to assess whether she should be here and make sure

those who should not be are not allowed in. To pick up the the

statistic. 27% of British Muslims said they'd some sympathy for the

motives behind the Charlie endoe attacks in Paris in January? Is that

worrying? Very worrying. I personally believe we should not

worry about whether or not people want to take the proverbial out of

our faith. Faith is about me and my religion not about me and the rest

of the public. I would not welcome anyone saying people should be

harmed or hurt because they abused us or criticised us. 27% of British

Muslims do? That's a survey. I know from talking to dozens around the

country that's not what they believe. They are British. They were

Muslim victims of the terrorism in Paris. No-one's denying that. But

you should agree we should talk about this. I've not problem talking

about it. Should we take more Syrian refugees? My personal belief is

these people are fleeing fascist regime which is Isis. Back in the

thirties, with he didn't say to the Jews go back to Hitler. We should be

doing the same with refugees. A lot were turned back. That compar is son

is a completely different situation. While the public here rightly

express sympathy with the victims of the terrorist attacks in Paris,

it is only natural that thoughts The security services say they have

foiled a number of plots on UK soil, and

the Government is stressing that it is determined to tackle the threat

of more, but is there a weak spot? The policy of deradicalisation

called Prevent has come in for criticism that it's alienating

as many as it deals with. Giles has been looking

into this trickier area His film opens with

a police exercise. These are not terrorists,

but police. But since the Mumbai attacks, the

risk of a terrorist shooting attack has been trained for as part of

the UK's counterterrorism strategy. Paris has shown the threats to be

a tragically very real one, and we have been told the security

services have foiled seven But there is another strand to our

preparations, and that is how you tackle someone who has yet to pick

up a gun or bomb and is starting Prevent is the Government's push

on changing their minds. We've trained 330,000 people

to implement the new Prevent duty. So by a process of concentrating our

approach, refining what we do and being mindful of those

sensitivities, In June this year, 327 people

were placed in a deradicalisation in August, just 120, but the total,

796, was a larger number True, we have not had

a mass casualty attack here for a decade, but that might be a victory

more for counterterrorism than deradicalisation programmes, given

that, according to police, 700 UK citizens have gone to Syria to fight

with jihadists, The problem may be interaction

at grassroot levels. There are four key elements of the

Contest strategy. The Prevent strategy is

the one that isn't successful, because confidence is not there

in the community. We need to learn lessons

about how we defeated the IRA. It's about talking to individuals

that may be difficult for the Government to appreciate

that they need to speak to. At the moment,

we're not doing that. that the Government feel

comfortable with. They're not necessarily the

ones that represent the community. And some are uncomfortable with

the Government's push that schools, universities

and councils should report The more you limit your ability to

say that you can have discreet and caring conversations with your

students, the more likely it is that you will prevent them, ironically,

from being able to come to you and express concerns where they might

be open to influence that might But the Government disagrees

that it's asking them to spy. If you take these colleges

and schools, they have always taken Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq

of the University of Bolton was speaking about this recently to me

and saying that duty of care is very much in line with what

we now expect people to do. If you see it in those terms,

actually, it is very natural. And being frank,

there is no doubt that in the UK right now, there are people who do

wish us a great deal of harm. Joining us now is the

Conservative MP, Rehman Chishti, and Miqdaad Versi,

the Assistant Secretary General Rehman Chishti, more than 700 people

have left the UK to fight in Iraq and Syria. Prevent, the government

strategy to deter people from engaging in terrorism, has therefore

failed. Well, you are looking at the number 700 in recent years, but the

problem we have had with radicalisation and extremism has

gone on for decades. After the war in Afghanistan, Abu Hamza, who

fought in that war, was openly allowed to come to this country and

preaches hatred. Nothing was done. You had hate preachers in this

country. To save this is something that has happened over the last few

years is not right. But since 2010? This is a combination of successive

governments which have not got to grips with deradicalisation.

Including yours. We have a lot more to do, I would be the first to say

that. But do I think we need to look at Prevent taking into account the

threat posed by Daesh? When Prevent was first set up, Daesh was not

there, so the threat posed by Daesh is significant and we need to make

sure Prevent deals with that threat. But Labour targeted moderate Islamic

groups in a hope that they would provide a way out for those on the

margins. The coalition withdrew funding from those groups opposed to

fundamental British values. Was that a mistake? We took money away from

certain groups where money was not used appropriately. In the last

year, we have worked with over 250 mosques around the country, but we

have to target the money appropriately by working with those

who are committed to British values. Is that a mistake? I think

the government should engage with a broad range of British Muslim

communities, not just the ones who agree with what it says. That is

something that hopefully, everyone would agree with. It makes no sense

to try to institute a policy that will impact significantly on one

portion of the community. You need to be talking, understand the

concerns, and then we can keep ourselves safe. We need something

effective, evidence -based and something that the community can buy

into. Has the government been talking to the Muslim Council of

Britain? The government has not been talking to the Muslim Council of

Britain. For us, it is important to have critical friends at the table.

There are many who criticise the Muslim Council of Britain. Nazir

Afzal has done so in the past as well, but he was invited to our AGM

last year. We are happy to talk to people with different views, and the

government should do so as well. Shouldn't the government be talking

to critical voices if that is what is needed to reach those who might

be vulnerable to that sort of ideology? I have engaged with the

Muslim community. I have personally had meetings with the Muslim Council

of Britain and their Secretary General. I want to engage with

everyone. So when I put the recommendation forward to

government, we have listened to everyone. We are in this together.

Everyone has a role to play in fighting this evil ideology. And

these extremists will not stop at anything to impose their will. The

more we are united with all organisations, the better. That is

right. I was invited to speak at your AGM. You did not have the issue

of people flying off to Syria and Iraq on your agenda. I said, I will

only speak if you allow me to speak about that and thankfully, you did.

So it was about me opening the door which you were not prepared to talk

about, but I do pay tribute to you. You have personally spoken about

this subject. But my view is like that which Rehman Chishti is saying.

We have failed in many aspects around engagement. We have not

caught up with the internet age. Prevent was pre-had macro. -- it was

pre-Daesh. At the moment, we have a programme where we do not have

one-on-one mentoring. We do not have enough mentors. Why did you not have

that at the top of your agenda? With 700 people who have gone to Syria

and Iraq and been radicalised? It was not part of our AGM, but we are

doing work on it now. On Thursday, before the horrific attacks in

Paris, we had a national meeting where we started a listening

exercise across the country to understand what is going on and to

see what Muslim communities in the grassroots are saying and to

corroborate what we have said in the past to find ideas on how to tackle

the issues we face. We are on the front line. There is no silver

bullet. There is no clear answer. The answer is the grassroots, not

the very large organisations. Do you see the Muslim Council of Britain as

grassroots? My point is that I have worked with lots of women's groups,

for example. They are the answer. They don't have the time to put in a

business case for government funding. We have to make it easier

for them to do their job. You are right, we have to broaden the

engagement. We have set up a community engagement panel to make

sure all views are taken on board. There are those who are dangerous,

those who are disturbed and those who are disillusioned. Therefore,

the government has irresponsible at it to ensure that it deals with

those who are dangerous. Those who are disillusioned and disturbed get

sucked into this poisonous ideology, and therefore, mum and dad have a

responsibility to watch what their children are doing an the internet.

It is important to take down internet material, but it is also

important to put up another narrative which tackles that. Are

the Muslim community doing enough to stop radicalisation in their own

homes? There is a lot more that needs to be done from within the

Muslim community and outside it. There is a long journey ahead of

us. We have to ask how to best Brit. Some of the ideas coming from the

government or from the grassroots are being done at grassroots level.

They are being done at local mosques. We need some of these ideas

to go to the government. The community engagement the government

has set up does not have a broad section of the community

represented. Thank you for joining us. Rehman Chishti, you will stay

with us a bit longer. A few minutes ago, the Prime Minister made a

statement to the House of Commons on the Paris attacks and the G20 summit

from which he has just returned. Let's listen to what he had to say.

We face a direct and growing threat to our country, and we need to deal

with it not just in Iraq, but in Syria as well. I have always said

there is a strong case for doing so. Our allies are asking us to do

this, and the case for doing so has only grown stronger after the Paris

attacks. We cannot expect and should not expect others to carry the

burdens and the risks of protecting our country. I recognise that there

are concerns in this House. What difference would action by the UK

make? Could it make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian

action affect the situation? How, above all, would a decision by

Britain to join strikes against Isil in Syria fit into a comprehensive

strategy for dealing with Isil and a diplomatic strategy to bring the war

in Syria to an end to? I understand these concerns, and I know they must

be answered. I believe they can be and third. Many were expressed in

the recent report of the foreign affairs select committee. My

conviction is that we need to act against Isil in Syria. There is a

compelling case for doing so. It is for the government to make that case

to this House and the country. I can therefore announced that of first

important step to do so, I will respond personally to the report of

the foreign affairs select committee. I will set out our of

strategy for dealing with Isil, our vision for a more stable and

peaceful Middle East. In my view, this strategy should include taking

the action in Syria I have spoken about. I hope that in setting out

the arguments in this way, I can help build support across this House

for the action that I believe is necessary. That is what I will be

putting in place over the coming days, and I hope colleagues from

across the House will engage with that and make clear their views so

we can have a strong vote in this House of Commons and do the right

thing for our country. That was the Prime Minister in the House of

Commons a few moments ago. He is going to take the unusual step of

responding personally to the foreign affairs select committee report

calling for a plan for a wider peace in Syria, and he will set out a road

map that he believes will have more action to take against Isil. Do you

support air strikes against Isis in Syria? I agree that we have to do

everything we can to defeat this evil organisation. But before we go

to military action, let's get the government to get the terminology

right and defeat the propaganda. At the moment, so-called Isil want to

be called an Islamic State. We have just talked about why over 600

British nationals have been sucked into fighting for this even

organisation. The government has to get the strategy right to defeat

their organisation right and get the terminology right. And then you will

support air strikes? This time, I want to see the strategy put forward

before I decide whether to support them.

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

I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage of

He brought ground-breaking, subversive shows

He was the most brilliant young producer.

He was the only one that could really keep up with me.

'While you're alive, you have to live.'