20/11/2015 Daily Politics

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