17/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.'


Download Subtitles