20/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Gunmen have taken 170 people hostage in a luxury hotel in the capital


of Mali in North Africa, with three people reported dead.


We'll have the latest on this developing story.


The latest extremist attack comes as France urges the rest of the EU to


take immediate and decisive action to tighten up Europe's borders.


Theresa May says border controls across the EU must be increased.


Ahead of George Osborne's spending review next week,


a leaked police document prepared for the Home Secretary warns


of the risk to security in Britain if police budgets are cut further.


And after a tumultuous week featuring public rows, heated


exchanges and pointed criticism of Jeremy Corbyn, we'll discuss what


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


today The Guardian columnist Zoe Williams and the political


Let's start though with the breaking news this


morning of a terror attack in the capital of Mali in North Africa.


Earlier this morning gunmen attacked a luxury hotel,


For the latest we can talk to our security correspondent,


What do we know so far? The situation in Bamako is unfolding


very fast. It is developing as we speak. Earlier this morning, a


number of masked gunmen, anywhere between three and 13, approached the


hotel in vehicles with diplomatic number plates. They quickly


overpowered security and shot dead at least two of the security guards


and went into the hotel, very popular with local business people


and editing aircrews, diplomats and expats, right in the heart of the


business district. They went through floor by floor, some reports say


throwing grenades, rounding up hostages. They have reportedly


released only a small number who were able to recite verses from the


Koran. They will also heard shouting Allahu Akbar, God is the greatest,


which is often shouted by the haggis is. -- jihadists. This is a serious


situation and it could be really grim depending on what they do with


the hostages. Malian special forces, as of a few moments ago, were


reported to be inside the hotel but that does not mean the situation is


under control. The French have a huge interest in this, there is a


confirmed French aircrew at the hotel and they have been offering


logistic and intelligence support and are probably very close behind


the Malian special forces. Is there any linkage at this early stage that


we can infer from what is happening to the attacks in Paris? Not yet.


Only a much broader ideological one. They share the same ideology, but


quite possibly they have a local grievance. Most experts we have


spoken to say they think they come from northern Mali. Nearly three


years ago, French forces went into Mali and reversed a takeover of the


country I am Al-Qaeda linked group. -- by an Al-Qaeda linked group. The


chances are that the people doing this are local West Africans,


possibly with links to Al-Qaeda, possibly but unlikely linked to Boko


Haram. Most likely a regional group. I may be wrong but I don't


think this will have been directed by so-called Islamic State. They


shared the same ideology which is to push out secular and democratic


devilment and install their own narrow brand of Islam that is


anathema to most of the population. They have hit in one of the most


sensitive places and they will be looking for maximum publicity which


is what they are getting. Thank you for bringing us up to date. We will


keep you up-to-date with all the information as it comes in.


This morning European interior ministers have been meeting in


Brussels to discuss how to tighten up security checks at EU borders.


Yesterday the French Interior Minister, Bernard


Cazeneuve, said Europe needed to "wake up" to the terror threat,


and demanded more intelligence sharing between countries.


On her way into the meeting, the Home Secretary, Theresa May,


said securing EU borders was vital to combat the threat of terrorism.


There is a clear link between security of the external border,


the EU's external borders, and security within the EU and that is


why it is important we ensure that the measures we have already agreed


But I'm going to be pressing on two further things today.


I think we need accelerated progress on firearms,


I would like to see all member states committing to improving the


measures and penalties for dealing with those who traffic in firearms.


And on passenger name records, we need to see immediate progress,


the negotiations have taken too long, that must be concluded


and the UK will be going ahead with obtaining records


from those who work operating to and from the United Kingdom.


We've been joined by the French TV journalist, Benedicte Paviot. What


can you tell us about this attack? Do you have any fresh information


and was it expected? Unfortunately, what the jihadist group, and I agree


with all of the analysis from Frank, it is a soft target. Having said


that, this particular medicine blue hotel is very well protected, or was


-- Radisson Blu. I understand we are dealing with two or three jihadists


with AK-47 Kalashnikovs which ended the perimeter and the building


around 7am, using a car with diplomatic plates so quite well


organised. I think they killed the security guards outside. We know at


least three are dead wolf that we have westerners, I don't know how


many French, at least seven Chinese, UN personnel, some of whom escaped.


The Malian forces have stormed part of the building. They cannot secure


the whole hotel. We know that there was a peace accord struck a few


months ago in Mali. The problem is that it only included one faction.


There are others who are very disgruntled. My understanding also


is that the tactics being employed here, it is linked to Paris and


apparently that is because a call goes out across the Internet for


jihadists, regional and local groups, to improvise and do their


thing and identify targets and this is what has happened. One French


security top military commander with great links to the French


intelligence services has just said that is why, and one does not want


to be alarmist, but it is a global threat. Mali is a former French


colony, French troops have been fighting Al-Qaeda troops on the


ground. In some Islamist states chatter in recent days, there have


been links, because of what the French had been doing in Mali, that


was a factor that led to Paris, they have been making that claim. But it


mean that there are French targets across the globe that are


vulnerable? Yes, absolutely it does mean that, at the meeting that is


going to go on between the justice ministers and Foreign Minister is


very important and what the French interior Minister is stressing, and


Theresa May also, is very important. I understand there is a draft


document evaluating the risk. There is no zero risk, we know that. The


danger for the media weather here, in France, or elsewhere, is to give


these people the blizzard the that they seek. And looking back at Mali,


it is important to storm any kind of situation like that very quickly. I


believe that hostages are being asked to recite a Koranic prayer and


this is very worrying. And the people who can are being released,


others are being kept. What the Malian forces, I understand suborder


bike French and UN forces, are doing, is trying to stop the


situation as quickly as possible -- supported by. They want world


headlines and that I getting them. They are not interested in


negotiation. Is this a new reality that we have to accept, that this is


the sort of thing that will continue? I think it has been


building for a number of years, you can go back to 2001 or even


earlier, Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, though, RAM, other groups. We will


have to adjust to this new reality everywhere and it is not just


France. France has suffered recently but there is no reason why it should


not be Britain, America, other parts of Europe. It is always worth


restating that the biggest victims of all of this are always Muslims.


They are Syrians, people in Mali, far more of them lose their lives


than anybody in Britain or America. Killed by other Muslims. That's


right. And it is slightly disingenuous to portray this as a


French problem because France was in Mali. What drew them into Mali at


that point were those gruesome terrorist attacks, they were


chopping people's hands off and boiling them and selling them back


on again and it was a deliberate attempt to bring the French in. --


sewing them. These attacks make more impact if that have brought in


outside agents and that is the purpose. European interior ministers


are meeting in Brussels today to look at the whole question of


borders and the French government has been explicit about this saying


that the European external border needs to be toughened up. Can the


European Union do something now that will secure its orders or is it too


much? I think that is', the idea that you can stop two terrorists


from 200,000 refugees -- that is 's -- proper stress.


What is worrying is that this ringleader that died on Monday in


the raid was actually taunting the authorities about being in Belgium


and Greece and whatever. I completely agree, there is no zero


risk. Forgive me, I forgot to state importantly, the jihadists and IS


are particularly targeting France because it is a secular state and


France is targeting them because it knows that it has this big attack


and terror threat from it. You are right, Mali, the reason the French


stepped in so quickly with helicopters from the UK, let's


remember, a former colony, they know that part of Africa very well but


also because Mali was about to become completely lawless and was


very much a training camp as Syria is today for very clear, targeted


major incident and terror attacks. They want to target European


capitals and that is why the French stepped in. The question about


borders, I think more can be done. More on intelligence sharing a


passenger information, there are things that can be done to improve


the situation. America is a bit tougher on some of these things. The


external border of Schengen could be reinforced. But some people will get


through and also, to repeat what everybody has noted, it is home


grown people who are in fact Belgians or French or British who


carry these things out. Some will have been to Syria but you can't


just say if we feel ourselves off we will be safe. What do you think


could be done? Remain mania, Greece, Turkey, all of those borders are


very porous -- Romania. A lot of arms are coming in from the


Balkans. When you have those, it is a wonderful ideal to have the


Schengen area but it has to be looked at carefully. This that mean


that this idea of a smaller Schengen area... I think that is a terrible


way to go. It is crazy to think that the answer to a global threat when


this is to become smaller and more insular. You can introduce a system


of spot checks inside the Schengen area. France has done quite a lot


this week, momentarily sealing the border with algebra. What would be


terrible if if we went back to the system of having to use because the


border from Belgium and Germany for example. You don't want to do that


but there are things you can do and there are things you can do on


intelligence sharing which has clearly been a bit of a failure in


this and there may be some things you can do on Assen Jet records and


so on. Beefing up the security services and the police will be part


of the response -- passenger records.


Police cuts expected to be announced in next week's Spending Review may


"reduce very significantly" the UK's ability to respond to a Paris-style


attack, the Home Secretary has been warned.


The advisory - which was leaked to the BBC - comes


in a restricted document prepared for Theresa May by one of the UK's


The Home Office said it would not comment on a leaked document.


This morning, Labour's Shadow Chancellor,


John McDonnell, was asked what he thought of the leak and the possible


It is everything that other police chiefs have been saying now


for months, that we all want to ensure our community is protected,


particularly in light of what has happened in Paris.


The first line of defence is the police on the beat, protecting


our community, preventing terrorist activity, finding intelligence


So we are all worried now that the scale of cuts George Osborne is


considering actually undermines our community's safety.


That has been said, and, as a result of the leak we know,


that is the advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we know


police chiefs around the country have been saying it as well.


We're joined now by Lord Reid, former Home and Defence Secretary


and now Chair of the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies.


I hope I got the correct. You did, as ever. Do you accept this


argument from the police if the Government is juice is the cuts


expected in the spending review next week, they will not be able to cope


with a Paris style attack? I certainly accept it will undermine


the capability for doing that and capacity for doing that, the two


reasons. John Denham mentioned local community policing and the effect on


the community. -- John McDonnell.


The first is the search capacity, that has already been mentioned.


People will not understand that? We saw that in Paris last week,


there were 115,000 police and security professionals which, if


there are more cuts to British police, mean they had more police in


one town in France than we will have in the whole of England.


Can I say the second one, though, this has not been mentioned, and is


crucial. Counter-terrorism depends on


intelligence. Some of that can be done centrally, signal


intelligence, communications intelligence, we all discuss GCHQ


constantly. But a lot is human intelligence, that comes from the


local communities, the grass roots. And in Britain, one of the reasons


we are admired for our counter terrorist intelligence is the police


act as a bridge between the Central intelligence agencies, and the


community. If you cut the numbers, as they have been doing and are


proposing to do again, then you cut the intelligence flow from the


community, and your capability. Can I ask about the numbers, you


said the French had 115,000 police and professionals in Paris. If the


cuts were introduced, the UK, we would not have that number across


the UK. We did some checking, there are 148,000 police officers in the


UK at the moment. Do you seriously think there will be that reduction?


I will counter your figures, there are not. Full-time police officers,


not secondments. When I left as Home Secretary, nine years ago, there


were 141,837, give or take a phew. And now there are 126,000. 16,000


less, excluding secondments and so on, 16,000 left, less now, then I


was in. If we get another cut next week, then you will see even fewer.


The number I was Northern Ireland and Scotland. I am comparing apples


with apples, not apples and pears. What the Government says is, yes,


but we have more people at the front. That fails to understand how


intelligence works. Because teeth to tail, that is front-line to the


actual production of intelligence, you need a ratio of one - four. If


you're cutting at the back end, you are undermining the capacity for the


flow of intelligence. There is no question. I have to say to you, it


comes on top of a Government which in the last five years has watered


down control orders which were introduced by David Blunkett,


abandoned ID cards introduced by me, they have delayed the increase in


technology and powers of surveillance, and they have


seriously weakened it. If a Government minister were here they


would say the Government has protected the counterterrorism


budget, introduced other powers, tidying up that wealth of


legislation. He would immediately say this was the fault of Nick


Clegg. To some extent, that would be true. But the truth is they have


weakened us. Take a simple case. We know there are at least 750 people


from this country who have gone abroad to work in Syria. With Isil.


Not just sympathisers but activists. We know there are at least 450 of


them now back in this country. Why don't we know how many of them are


subject to surveillance, prosecution, the radical as it


measures and so on? There is no clarity. This is a very serious


issue given what I said was the diminution of a counterterrorist


apparatus, that others can't run away from that. You have been Home


Secretary, taken part in spending reviews, is this not just the police


using the Paris attacks to defend their corner in a hard-fought


Spending Review that will be announced next week? They are


saying, don't cut us, look at Paris. Of course there is an element of


truth, when you come to a Spending Review, every group tries to put


forward a case. The substantial issue is, does it


make sense, is it true, but it had the effect they say they will? From


my experience, yes, it will. If I were Theresa May, I would be


publicly outraged somebody has leaked this, and privately I would


be on to number ten and number 11 Downing St saying, you cannot do


this in the present circumstances. We have Shannon with its


inadequacies. This ring of steel we talk about around Europe is actually


a sieve. We have mass immigration. We have economic migration,


refugees, terrorist attacks taking place in Europe.


Here in Britain, you are cutting the police even further which undermines


intelligence capability. I would use this to force the Treasury to face


up to the reality. Do you buy this argument, there is a


serious issue about police and security?


David Cameron has always presented cuts in police as back office


staff. As the back office staff never did anything. Funnily there


will be a conversation about both of those people were serving a useful


function and he will find out they were. There is always an element,


not necessarily deceit, but certainly a picture that wasn't the


full picture. John, do you think the Government is


getting the security response right? Energy is focused on whether action


should be taken militarily in Syria question mark should they be


thinking more seriously about the wider security issues?


I think they do. The events of the last two weeks clearly suggest we


will have to invest more, and they are, in the security services. And


we will probably have to invest more in the police.


The only thing I would say is every time I talk to people from the


health service, the education lobby, when you come up to autumn, they


say, we could take the cuts before but this time we cannot meet demand.


The police are bound to say the same thing. Across the public sector,


people will say, this time I can't take this cut. The Government had to


make it sums add up. You do get manoeuvring.


I don't quite agree, it had to make it sums add up, they have set that


sum. They have decided to cut the services. It has nothing to do with


what decent public services look like. We are being told public


services will not be affected. Meantime, being asked to dismiss the


people working in them for legitimate complaints.


We are about to talk about the Labour Party.


Jeremy Corbyn in his response to the press attacks has not been


universally welcomed, have you been impressed?


No. In fairness to him, I have not been impressed with much he has said


in 33 years. What is saddening for me particularly is the apparent lack


of coherence, as if every time Jeremy makes a statement, you have


two book a media slot for somebody from the Shadow Cabinet to


contradict him, disagree, or reinterpret what he is saying.


Sad for the Labour Party. I understand why it is happening.


It does not look coherent. Not competent. Not just sad for my party


but for the country because when you are in an emergency situation like


this, you do need a competent, cohesive, loyal opposition which


scrutinises and sizes, but can give support on big issues. That is a


problem which I don't know whether it is a sustainable position but the


solution will have to be found by the elected Members of Parliament.


The young MPs many of whom are very bright and competent. They had to


confront that challenge the way those of us who were lucky to be


part of a successful Labour team for years actually had to confront that


challenge over 17 years before we became successful. Against


militant, Scargill and so on. Our success did not come out of a


quiescent period of non-argument. But we were moulded and forged by


political and ideological debate. That is what led to a changing the


country. John Reid, U.


The gap between Jeremy Corbyn and Labour MPs grew even further


On Monday, the Labour leader said he was "not


happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot to kill"


policy in the event of Paris-style terror attacks in the UK.


Many Labour MPs were shocked and a fractious meeting with


Labour's parliamentary party ensued that evening.


One MP called it a "horrible confrontation".


This led to criticism of the Labour leader's stance on Tuesday


The former Shadow Chancellor, Chris Leslie, said the need


for such a power should be "immediately obvious to everyone".


On Wednesday, Ken Livingstone eventually


apologised after describing Shadow Defence Minister Kevan Jones


The former London Mayor said that Mr Jones, who suffers


from depression, should seek "some psychiatric help" after he


opposed Mr Livingstone's appointment as chair of a review into Trident.


Then, yesterday, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell was


at the centre of a row about whether he signed a letter in April calling


to "disband MI5 and special police squads and disarm the police".


A spokesman for Mr McDonnell said, "John does not share these views."


And added that he had thought he was posing with a copy of the


Socialist Campaign for a Labour victory's general aims.


We've been joined by Ayesha Hazarika, who was a special


advisor to Harriet Harman, and by James Schneider, media advisor to


Momentum, the campaign group closely associated with Jeremy Corbyn.


Thank you both for coming in. Can it go on like this? It has been a


terrible week for the Labour Party. The offence last week, of the ilk of


9/11, 7/7, a big moment for the whole world which feels like it is


on fire from terrorist attacks. You want your leadership to step up


and rise above all the party political, who is on what side, and


actually reflect where the public are and the anxiety and the fear


that the public have. The public should see in the Leader of the


Opposition someone they think could be Prime Minister and would put


security at the absolute top of his priority list. I am afraid that said


did not come across this week. How much of this is just an expense


by a bloke who has been on the backbenches, who is clearly in a


process of learning how to respond, rather than an ideological position


driven through this debate? Whether it is conspiracy or clock up, it has


the same effect. People will remember the fact that


when there were huge terrorist attacks, we were not clear on whose


side we were on as a Labour Party, and not clear about what our policy


was on bringing down terrorists who were armed. As one woman said to me


yesterday, if someone is coming after my child with a gun, I want


the police to go after that person with a bun. Some of it is down to


inexperience. When you step up to be Leader of the Opposition and want to


be Prime Minister, you have the keys to a very important machine and you


have to get better. It is not beyond the wit of anybody, doing an


interview, with a generalist, they will ask pressing questions in a


terrorist attack and you need answers ready which you think how


well the public see this? Putting politics aside, is there not


a basic competence questioned about Jeremy Corbyn and his leadership?


No, I don't think his leadership has not shown competence, I think there


are huge problems within the party which will happen. We have had a


very big change am not long ago, the membership of the party


overwhelmingly voted for a huge change of direction and that does


set the membership and the leadership somewhat at odds with


some sections of the party. We need to work out ways to have grown up


debates on areas of disagreement and come together. There are big areas


where we are very clear what we should be doing, on economic policy,


welfare... The performance this week has not been about the tensions


between MPs and Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, it has been his response


to this. Is he in favour of legal action in a live terrorist situation


or not? Confusion. His position on the Syria vote. Confusion. That has


nothing to do with the relationship between MPs. I don't think that's


true. On the Syria but, he said that party conference voted through a


Syrian motion that said without UN support you could not have bombing


of Syria. Jeremy has said that will be a whipped vote. That is not


confusion. The confusion around what he said around shoot to kill as to


been seen -- has to be seen through the lens of certain part of the


party being in opposition to his leadership overall. That is not the


case. It was a simple question in the interview which he answered. He


didn't take that view because his office then clarified his view. The


bigger picture, we have had a bad week and we have to move on. We have


the Autumn Statement, lots of things. The Tory government is


pressing through with things that are damaging people who needed a


Labour government and all others in the Labour Party over those people a


huge apology for not winning the election. Terrible things are


happening with because I Tory majority. Tax credits, peoples


rights at work, the Labour, whether you are Momentum, another part of


the party, the question we need to ask, are we moving the party closer


to the British public in terms of winning the next election? We have


to ask that constantly. Have we moved closer to a tipping point


where there is some confrontation between the leadership and MPs? The


fact that the number of people coming out to criticise Jeremy


Corbyn, it questioned how functional the party can be. I hope not. I


hope, with so many things being brought forward by the government,


cuts to tax credits, squeezing on police budgets, all sorts of


government budget in the statement next week, that is an opportunity


for the party to come together... You have this opportunity where you


can unite around tax credits. It is one of the few issues... You have


also got next week a vote on Trident in the House of Commons. You have


got to make up your mind on that. I think one of the good things about


Jeremy winning, he said he would do things differently. One of the


reasons for his big win was that the party had suppressed any debate and


stifled discussion because it was a bit vulgar and unseemly and we had a


long time with sanitised meetings within the PLP where nobody would


say anything. Jeremy and his team should say, it is good and


healthy... You say good and healthy, let me read you a quote from Damian


McGrane, the former adviser to Gordon Brown. -- McBride. " Corbin


has been willing to appoint only true believers to his key Shadow


Cabinet and inner circle jobs and it allowing Unite to terrorise staff


and MPs like an Marge to the Bolshevik's secret police. " -- like


an homage. He is quite an explosive figure, that is the kind of thing he


would say. So that is OK? I think that is unhelpful and ridiculous.


Clearly we have nothing to do with the KGB. I don't know about Unite


harrying party staff. The idea that he has only appointed loyalists is


refuted by John Ripa was saying earlier. What about Jeremy's office?


Direct communications strategy, the power behind the throne is


important, why are those jobs not advertised? Who has ever advertised


those jobs? I agree to an extent, I think they are occupied by the same


choir. It is problematic from a diversity point of view is everybody


you look at is a white guy over 50, that is hugely problematic. They are


never going to look at things in a different way and I don't think they


are very porous generally. I don't think Ed Miliband advertised those


posts fourth and also you are right that there has not been enough


debate. Having a debate is a good idea but the other point made, this


group around Livingstone, they think they have learned from that and can


do it again... Many of the people who worked with Livingstone are very


close. The problem which he identified is that that is fine but


then he lost two elections one after the other when Labour should have


won. The distance from the voters is increasing all the time. And the


behaviour of Ken Livingstone this week has made people feel very


uneasy about the amount of influence and power he has around Jeremy. I


think Jeremy has the right values and is trying to put forward a


different kind of politics but you see a lot of people around him


exercising a lot of viciousness, we are getting controlled. -- trolled.


James come it is very good you are here, so are you the party within,


and can you guarantee that Momentum will never campaign to deselect a


Labour member of Parliament? No and no. In any capacity? In any


capacity, we are not designed to engage in that type of activity. We


are trying to build up your power in the country and make the Labour


Party more like a social movement, more able to engage with social


movements and campaign groups at community and national level. Would


you ever accuse any Labour MPs are being closet Tories? We have a code


of ethics and we would not do that. Would you speak out against other


people who are calling other Labour people Tories and telling them to


get out of the party? People should not tell you to get out of the party


come Jeremy said that clearly and that is in our code of ethics. Will


you call people out on it? If anybody is thinking of it, they


should not do it. At all. Thank you very much.


Since April this year, convicted criminals in England and


Wales have had to pay a criminal courts charge of up to ?1200 towards


It was introduced by the government to raise money


But it's been opposed by many in the judiciary, and today the


Justice Select Committee has called on the charge to be scrapped.


Here's the Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, talking about


Well, I believe in evidence led policy and one of the things that I


think it is important we should do is look at the evidence not just


from the magistracy, but also, as he points out, in terms of collection.


It is the case, it is the case that the criminal


courts charge is generating revenue which helps ensure it is not


the taxpayer who is the first port of call for supporting what operates


But it is important that we balance all of these criteria in making


a judgment about the review of the charge.


We've been joined by the chairman of the Justice Select Committee, the


Why do you want to get rid of these charges? Whatever the principle


behind it, it's not working in practice. We have a raft of evidence


across the board that think it is not raising the money is supposed


to, it may actually end up costing us more. And also, it is having a


distorting effect on the way that judges and magistrates sentenced.


They are dealing with people with limited means and because they have


to impose this charge, with no discretion, they are going easier on


things like fines or compensation for victims or costs for the


prosecution and that is getting the priorities wrong. Could you not give


them more discretion? The principle of how it is currently constructive


is wrong and there is also the concern of whether this does wish


people into pleading not guilty when they should not. We think it ought


to go and if not that, certainly judges should be given a double


discretion, first of all as to whether or not to impose the charge


at all and secondly how much it is but at the moment they have no


discretion on either. Would the taxpayer not say, why shouldn't


people convicted of an offence contribute to some of the costs of


the court that has found them guilty? Is that not a principle but


should be supported? That is one of the arguments made behind the


charge. It sounds like a conservative argument. If somebody


commits a crime and is brought to court, there will be because of


prosecution and the Crown Prosecution Service. What we think


is best if that is the area where we should penalise those who have


means. If they have got the money, it them on the costs if they string


out the proceedings and try it on with the system. If they have heard


somebody financially, make sure they pay compensation to that person but


you can't get blood out of a stone. Where is the government on this?


There are hints that Michael Gove might be rethinking. He was clear


about that when he gave evidence to the select committee. There are


other ways. Sir Brian Levenson did a very useful report on how to get


efficiencies out of the criminal justice system. I think Michael Gove


is a rational man and I hope he listens to the evidence. Are you


giving him a little cover to move on this? We are responding to the


evidence we have heard. Then you have the chairman of the sentencing


council, the judicial executive board who are the top judges in the


country, right the way through to the magistrates who deal with 95% of


the cases every day, that is pretty comp telling evidence. And you also


have many magistrates resigning. -- compelling evidence. And there are


cases when defendants are encouraged to plead guilty even if they are not


guilty because they know that if they are found to be guilty having


pleaded not guilty they will have to pay more in charges. If you have a


system which is perverting the judicial outcome, that is worrying.


Where does the money come from? Judicial systems are run from the


public purse. Just because some is a criminal does not mean they have


money. To spend a huge at the time and effort getting money out of


them, apart from anything else from a moral perspective, is completely


pointless. The money has to come from somewhere. It is there to say


that if you are squeezing public spending as hard as this government


is you will run into problems like this all the time and there may be


questioned about whether it is appropriate to squeeze it. There is


also the question of pay-as-you-go government but you have to be


careful and charging defendants in the judicial system is not the right


way to go. Charging patients was groups be right or charging people


more on trains... You have to be careful, if you are charging someone


who has no choice about being there. That is an important point and there


is a distinction between the criminal courts and other courts.


You have a choice as to whether it you bring an action for breach of


contract for example but you don't have a choice if the state decides


to bring a prosecution against you. You are entitled to the projects and


of innocent until proven guilty -- presumption. Is there not a wider


point that this is another example of the Chris Grayling legacy that is


potentially about to be unstitched? Is it a legacy now? Body of work!


Michael Gove made clear that he was unhappy with this idea and he is


looking for other ways and he even talked about imposing some kind of


tax on law firms in London to generate it. I'm not sure that would


be popular! But this is not a good way of raising money. And the


employment tribunal charges are also massively perverting justice and as


soon as you start charging for justice, you perverted the outcome.


Is this another example of Michael Gove, the liberal? I don't think he


wants to suddenly start saying we need to spend more money so let's


raise taxes, it is a problem for a Conservative government, they want


to keep cutting spending and they don't want to raise taxes so what do


you do? It is quite radical, is not just a simple conservative measure.


They are cutting in a radical way and there is nothing to stop them


being lest radical. Time now for our regular round-up


of the week, in just 60 seconds. Francois Hollande declared


"France is at war", as the security operation continued


after the devastating attacks The PM told MPs Britain should bomb


Isis in Syria and, despite concern from the Labour leadership, some


Labour MPs agreed with Mr Cameron. They also took issue with


Mr Corbyn's stance on a police shoot-to-kill policy,


saying they need it. The proportional use


of lethal force if needs be... Surprise co-chair of Labour's


Defence Review, the anti-Trident Ken Livingstone, reacted quickly to


criticism, telling MP Kevan Jones to One storm of outrage later,


he apologised on Twitter, 98% of junior doctors voted to


strike in a ballot organised by the BMA in protest at the Government's


proposed changes to their contracts. Three strikes are planned


for December. And David Cameron mimicked US


presidents, by ordering himself An RAF voyager will now be


transformed into Cam Force One. One of the other things which came


at this week was whether the Prime Minister should have his own plane.


What do you think? If you are going to be the


Government that cannot afford anything, you will always be asked


questions about why you can afford a plane.


It isn't that expensive and it is to most other heads of governments have


more lavish planes. The British Government is reasonably economic.


But why was it totally not acceptable for Tony Blair and Gordon


Brown, but now it is acceptable. Tony Blair, it chimed with his


presidential money grabbing thing. If you remember, if you look how


unpopular Tony Blair is now, it is not all Iraq. It is not, it is very


much in the sense of him wanting to be part of the international jet


set. That is what Gordon Brown tried to close down. Cameron has a load of


toxicity but it is not that. It is perhaps a problem between Labour and


Conservative leaders. Cameron comes from a posh background


and is well off, but they don't get the same attacks as for Tony Blair


who has made a lot of money. The Government makes the argument


that in their view it will save money. I get on these flights with


the Prime Minister all the time, they have too high a jet, endless


negotiations with airlines over the price. And which media organisation


should pay. It is so tawdry.


The media would probably prefer this. I remember going on a flight


where the plane had to fly from Abu Dhabi to Mombasa to pick up the


British Airways males, and come back to pick up Tony Blair.


It was run in the Sun newspaper as a waste of money. That would not


happen if he had his own plane. This question has come up because it


is one of the many announcements that has fallen off the side of this


Spending Review. There is a weekend of news before


the actual day. Where do we think George Osborne is? He has a big


issue in terms of tax credits. Is he in a good place?


He has made a mess of tax credits. The way they try to push through the


tax credits was misguided, they should have realised in the House of


Lords. His own side, Nigel Lawson saying,


what is required is change, she said, the mess that up.


He has set himself targets. They did say they would cut the welfare


budget, otherwise housing. It will be a tough Spending Review.


The thing is, it is coming from the same people. If he does it with


housing benefit, that will cause exactly the same few Rory and


hardship. I would be more inclined to think he


will pull away from the target rather than find money elsewhere,


unless he will go for pensions. I think he will ease up on how


quickly they get to a success. He will save the economy is growing


faster so they do not need to cut the budget as fast. Where the


Government is failing if they are protecting too much of the


middle-class benefits and those of the elderly. Pensions. Rail


subsidies. They are hitting poor people far too much.


Is there the underlying question whether or not, when we see the


numbers, quite so much money should be protected in the way it is now? A


huge amount of that budget is protected. We are asking the wrong


questions. Not should those people be


protected, but why are you seeking a surplus? You are creating a plan to


destroy your own money supply, why? They want to create a narrative


where nothing is affordable, therefore everything is up for


grabs. That creates problems for them.


People did not vote for austerity light.


They did not vote for tax credits to be cut. They expressed the voted for


a man who said he would not cut tax credits. The ID he is sticking to


what he said is not the case. The voters made clear he McCutcheon they


believed Labour had overspent which was a cause of the financial crisis,


which is arguable. They felt the austerity was right.


The question is when you cut through the fat into the bone. Most voters


would say ease up a little. Your point about protected areas of


spending is an important one. If you get to a position where you protect


large chunks of the budget, then cut exceptionally deep to make those


numbers add up... And they are mainly falling on local


authorities which is a problem. One example, the NHS is protected,


but social care spending by local authorities is not. If you cut


social care spending, you increase the burden on the NHS, which is


foolish. Tomorrow is National Hedgehog Day,


and it's a serious business because many people think


the prickly creature is in trouble. It's thought that Britain's hedgehog


population has fallen by a third in the last ten years,


and that there are now fewer than To raise awareness of their plight,


one MP is even calling for the hedgehog to become


Britain's national symbol, and that controversial suggestion


was recently debated in Parliament Hedgehogs are prickly in character,


have a vociferous appetite, a passion for gardens,


and have a very noisy sex life. Madam Deputy Speaker,


I leave it to you to decide as to In a BBC wildlife poll,


hedgehogs were chosen as the best natural emblem


for the British nation, beating the I ask both sides of this House,


because this is not a question that concerns only one


party, but all of us. Do we want to have


as our national symbol an animal which, when confronted


with danger, rolls over into a Do we want to have as


our national symbol an animal that Or would you rather return to


the animal that is already our national symbol, I refer,


of course, to the lion. Joining me now is Hugh Warwick


from the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and author


of several books about hedgehogs. Let us begin by that point by Rory


Stewart, why should the hedgehog be our national symbol?


We have spent our time being too seduced by Mrs Tiggy Winkle. If we


go back to the ancient Greeks, they saw the hedgehog is physically wide,


a very intelligent animal. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog


knows just one and this is a good thing, said one philosopher.


I liked the idea of spending most of the winter tucked up asleep, I had


to say. The point was made that it is a


little bit modest, perhaps, as a national symbol.


The hedgehog is in the 1% of all animals who have ever lived on the


planet, bigger than 99% of all animals that have ever lived.


Most animals are Beatles! The hedgehog is not an immodest animal.


Something people in this country deeply care about.


You can't imagine and England footballer kissing the three


hedgehogs on his football shirt. Do you think the English football


team would perform any worse? Good question. I leave that hanging


in the yeah. Tell us about the concerns about the numbers, are they


as serious as being portrayed? I have been working with the


preservation Society and we have been collecting together research to


find out. The proposition has declined by at


least one third in ten years. Tomorrow is the day of the hedgehog,


we have a big conference in Telford, launching our latest results.


We are keeping on top of this. This rate of decline is something we


should be concerned about. The hedgehog, whilst we are fond of


it as a garden animal, when it is affected, it is an indicator of what


is wrong with our environment. They feed on the little bugs and beasts,


worms and Beatles, in the margins of our fields.


Part of the population decline hedgehogs are suffering is tied into


the fact these are being wiped out from our landscape in the rural


setting. We need to look at ways of bringing that back into a more


wildlife friendly setting. And work that into our suburban patch which


is why we have launched our project.


Someone suggested today hedgehogs have some potential role in curing


baldness, is this true? There have been many uses of the


hedgehog, used to cure pretty much everything from piles to impotence.


I wouldn't waste too much time rubbing hedgehogs into your head


just yet. What do you think? Should be hedgehog be a national


symbol for us as much of MPs be talking about this?


I am not sure. Our national symbols tend to be front, the line is not


native to Britain, St George came from the Caucasus.


I would not make the hedge of our symbol but it clearly needs


rescuing. I realise I do not care whether we


have a civil or not. That is so Guardian newspaper.


You will now have to start writing a column about what people can do to


help protect them. What can people do to protect


hedgehogs? The best thing is to join our


campaign, you will find it on the Internet. Don't just make your


garden hedgehog friendly but look to your hedgehog Gardens, make a hole


in your fence, ask them to, creating not just one small patch but an


entire street for hedgehogs. Everyone can share the hedgehog


love. I don't understand about making


their move around. If you have a whole, they need to


travel around. Clearly a debate which will never


finish. Thanks to Zoe,


John and all my guests. Andrew will be back on Sunday on BBC


One at 11 with the Sunday Politics. And Jo will be here


on BBC Two with more Daily Politics The first illustration


shows Hitler and Himmler It became clear that this porcelain


was actually made


Download Subtitles