18/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron says that too few Muslim women living in Britain speak


Is their isolation fuelling extremism?


After a difficult few weeks for the Labour leader,


Jeremy Corbyn sets out his policy stall, but will voters like the look


There are four well known Eurosceptics in the Cabinet,


but will any of them campaign for an British exit


Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown


of Muslims entering the United States.


After that statement last month and 500,000 signatures to an online


petition, MPs debate whether to ban Donald trump from the UK.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today are the Conservative MP and former


Deputy Mayor of London, Kit Malthouse and the Labour MP


The Prime Minister says that too few Muslim women living in the UK speak


good English and that this is fuelling social isolation


He has announced ?20 million to fund English lessons and said that anyone


on a spousal visa who fails to master the language could be


It is essential that it does work because we want to build a more


integrated, cohesive, one nation society where everyone


You can't have a country of opportunity if some people can't


speak the language and in many cases, it's no fault of their own.


It's because they've been put into a situation where they have


been encouraged not to integrate and not to go out and not to learn


the language and that's not good enough.


That needs to change in our country and these proposals will make sure


We're joined now from Birmingham by Zymbeida Limbada


of the anti-extremism charity, Connect Justice.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. What do you think of David Cameron's


suggestion that there is or could be a link between low levels of English


amongst some Muslim women and the potential for extremism? There is


absolutely no evidence to suggest that for example if you look at the


700 cases of people who have gone to fight in Syria to join Isis that if


their mothers had actually spoken English, this would have stopped


them from going into Syria. So the evidence is very poor in this


particular case. If it is a security issue, the lack of evidence is very


different from something that I see framed within the context of


equalities. Social mobility and integration, those are two very


different matters and it is important that the Prime Minister


does not conflict two very separate issues. So when he says that if you


don't speak English, I mean, this is what I put to you initially, but in


a slightly different angle, you could be more susceptible to the


extremists message that comes from Daesh. Do you think that a sense of


isolation, if you don't speak English could make some people


susceptible to a radical message coming from outside the UK? The fact


that you don't speak a particular language and within if you look at


for example Chinese communities, Polish communities, it means that


everyone is susceptible. That women for example, that we engage with


from the Muslims communities, one of their concerns, when it comes to


practical measures when it comes to conversing with their children is


around the fact that they don't understand the internet. They don't


understand social media and that's something that concerns them on the


extremism aspect. There is a different matter when it comes to


learning, being engaged in the economy, getting jobs, and being


part of society. It is what David Cameron says about British values.


Two different matters. What about the issue of identity though? Does


that in anyway sort of transcend towards messages of extremism and


radicalisation for the very reasons you've said? If you are not having


any other engagement beyond the home or beyond the mosque and you don't


have access to the internet, in that sense, could you be radicalised in


any way? I mean, there is no end to, it could be this, or it could be


that. If you start to target a particular segment of the community


and then if you look at gender within that community and a few


saying that they are disempowered, by adding punitive measures and


adding in the lens of security, surely that makes them slightly more


susceptible to not listening to the message that the Prime Minister is


trying to give. Actually t could have the opposite effect. It is more


likely to radicalise by taking this language and these measures.


likely to radicalise by taking this agree the foundation of integration


is language acquisition, it sits at the base of every coherent society


that we have a common language that everybody can participate in and can


absorb through the various routes, the media and the influences that


they need to turn into a productive member of society. What the Prime


Minister wrote in the Times today, it was very balanced and measured


about this idea, there are particular segments of society, who


because of cultural or other practises are marginalised, maybe


because they are new arrivals to the country and don't have the language


acquisition and he wants to make it easier, it is that simple. As a


by-product, was it helpful to actually link the fact that there is


a potential for extremism with low levels of English amongst Muslim


women? One of the things that's women? One of the things that's


challenged everybody around counter extremism is the idea of certain


sections of the community, whoever they maybe, feeling as if they are


outside of the mainstream. If one of the barriers to that is language,


then surely we should do something to tackle it? If you look at a


message that the Government is giving of participation, I fully


embrace that. When a male Prime Minister tells me that he is


embraced equality, a positive message. When the Cabinet has 20


member and ten women, those are the bigger issues of ensuring equalities


is a standard message. That involves everyone, but it is heard by


everyone and not alienating certain segments of the community with


punitive measures. Let's look at the measures. Is it right to be looking


at not extending visas if somebody has been here for two-and-a-half


years and they still don't speak English? Again, I would like to ask


David Cameron how would you be measuring someone's level of English


in terms of the progress that they may have made in two, two-and-a-half


years? As a child of immigrant parents, it is almost implying that


integration over a longer term does not work. Investment has got to be


more sustained. We have had around 20% cuts in language classes and to


suddenly reintroduce ?20 million of investment for a particular targeted


minority community simply on the basis of gender is not a thought


through messure. It is almost like the Government are running out of


ideas around extremism and conflating this dangerously. How


would this work? People will be deported if very haven't reached a


certain level of English? They wouldn't be deported. They wouldn't


have their visa extended. It would be taken into account. How measure?


If you apply for a tier two visa, there is a test that establishes the


level you need to work here. We assess everybody's English in this


country in school anyway by making people take exams. Surely, it is a


good thing to have extra money, that is targeted, never mind it was cut


by the Government originally in this particular area, but it is targeted


to help people who could be marginalised and learn and improve


English. I grew up in an Irish family in this country in the 70s


and 80s, it wasn't fashionable to be Irish growing up at that time. And I


think that feeling of being made to feel other than being fully British


is really problematic. I think it is clumsy. I think it would be counter


productive for those communities. We need a much more... Do you think it


would actually marginalise them further? When you feel you are being


attacked for who you are, you know, people gather together, don't they?


You sense that you must look after yourselves and I think that's really


clumsy and unhelpful at this time. And as Kit said, people are required


to pass an English test to come through. I'm in the sure what the


detail is. I'm not sure this is being


characterised as an attack. This is ?20 million... Cuts from further


education colleges. Why are you targeting Muslim women in


particular? Is that the only segment in society that can't speak good


will you have English in the Government's mind? If you read the


article it talks about women generally. The Prime Minister said


it would be targeted at women and specifically again at Muslim women.


It maybe that he identifies a particular problem. This comes out


of a meeting that he held last week with leading Muslim women at Downing


Street where a number of them recouldn'ted to him the problems


that they felt there were within the community of marginalisation and


certain cultural practises which are not beneficial to the progress of


women, so naturally he is going to talk about that. When I was a


councillor, we had a problem in the Chinese society. That is something


that could be addressed too. On the cultural issue, there is a


disconnect if there are communities where women are kept at home by


their male partners, where they are not given access to the things that


other women are given. Do you see that that isn't in accord with the


British values that David Cameron believes? I think, I mean, even kind


of referring to Kit's point here about the Prime Minister meeting


women in Downing Street. I would start off by urging David Cameron to


come and speak to the women that we talk to on a daily basis. Some of


the issues are very different from what the Government seems to


constantly impose and continues to marginalise. There has been a lot of


again, disenchantment with the Government's way of messaging. It is


very paternalistic and it is constantly reinforcing this view


that the Muslim community have got a problem that they need to sort out.


There is no partnership element and that's complete lilacing as well.


The question for today is: what song does Jeremy Corbyn whistle


Is it, A, Only You by the Flying Pickets?


B, God Save the Queen by The Sex Pistols?


Or D, Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree


At the end of the show Karin and Kit will no doubt give us


It has not been an easy start to the year for Jeremy Corbyn,


but now the dust has settled on his Shadow Cabinet reshuffle,


the Labour leader seems keen to shift the focus onto policy.


On Friday, Labour launched their defence review,


including looking at their policy on Trident, and Mr Corbyn was out


at the weekend to set out his stall on a wide range of issues.


In an interview on The Andrew Marr Show, Mr Corbyn


reiterated his support for the junior doctors strikes said


he would repeal legislation outlawing "sympathy strikes".


He said that there has to be discussions with Argentina over


the future of the Falklands, but that the Islanders have


On Trident, he reiterated his anti-nuclear stance,


but he put forward the possibility of maintaining the submarines


without the nuclear warheads as a way of protecting jobs.


And he said that there needs to be a "route through" to talks


Dialogue is perhaps the wrong word to use.


I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong


points are, their weak points are, and how we can


So, I believe that the neighbouring governments in the region


Look at the way there has been to some degree,


at times, of prisoner, hostage exchange.


Look, we've got to bring about a political solution in Syria.


That's something I've been calling for all along.


So, Vienna has made a lot of progress, it has to go a lot


But war crimes have got to be addressed.


And we are joined now by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones


Welcome to you both of you. Dan Hodges, on its foreign policy stuff,


what was your overall impression? Well, a normal political context, it


would be another disaster for the Labour Party. This these are simply


not the issues that Labour wants to be discussing at the moment. Which


ones are you talking about? The Falklands, the opening door for


negotiation with Isil, Trident, obviously and if you remember when


Jeremy Corbyn was first elected within hours of his election, the


Conservatives sent out a series of adverts to frame Jeremy Corbyn as


weak on defence, weak on national security and to put this issue at


the top of the political agenda and indeed, if you saw it, there was an


poll in the Independent on Sunday yesterday which shows that national


security is at the top of people's concerns. So, on that level, it is


disastrous for Labour, but we have to understand this is not a normal


political context, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are not atelting to


frame a programme for Government. It is all about internal politics


within the Labour Party for Jeremy Corbyn at the moment. Right, well,


let's take two of those Owen Jones and talk about his comments on the


Falklands and some sort of talks, not dialogue, with Isil. I mean, is


he actually going to be able to change the terms of trade on


national security and defence or will he continue to be pigeon-holed


in the day that Dan Hodges said he is?


On domestic policy it is pretty united, that is where it needs to


focus. On foreign policy, what the Labour leadership needs to focus on


putting the Government on the defensive, like its alliance with


the Saudi dictatorship which beheads its own citizens, kills political


dissidents, treats women as having no rights. Crucially, exports


international extremism all over the world, a threat to the security of


the people watching this programme. A second issue dealing with Isis,


the role of Turkey, a British ally, where it allows Isis fighters to


cross into Syria, posing a threat to national-security. Lots of issues it


could be focusing on. My own view is there is consensus on domestic


policy where labour needs to put in an alternative.


You say there is consensus but not on defence, particularly Trident. On


issues like Saudi, Jeremy Corbyn has raised that issue and one could


argue David Cameron responded in terms of prisons being built, human


rights, delaying a visit, others the things Jeremy Corbyn has brought to


the table. They are not the things that need to


be brought to the table. Morally we can have a discussion about Saudi, I


would echo those sentiments, but people in the country will not be


voting in local, mayoral or general elections on our relationship with


Saudi Arabia. Jeremy Corbyn has fallen into a trap David Cameron has


set. David Cameron and the Tories wanted to frame Jeremy Corbyn as a


leader and the Labour Party as a party weak on national security, and


have succeeded spectacularly, primarily as a result of what Jeremy


Corbyn has said. The point about Saudi Arabia is it


poses a threat to national security in this country. There is a genuine


threat to families from extremists who believe in an ideology which is


hateful and a threat to the lives of people here. Saudi Arabia is at the


Centre. My point is, this is the point of the debate, it is easy, I


could get forced to talk about this and that with people saying you are


not sticking to parities of people around the country. I am saying the


lead -- I am saying the Labour leadership... If I go back home to


Stockport, in the pub, there won't be talking about Westminster or the


ticks, what are the priorities that affect them on a daily basis? That


is what we need to talk about. Let us talk about national security


and the issue of Trident, the future of Trident in terms of its renewal.


You say there is consensus but there is not. You know, on the issue of


Trident, there is a row brewing with the unions, why have Trident


submarines without missiles? It cannot be a deterrent if people know


there is nothing on board. The issue of nuclear weapons, we


should be mature on having a discussion on spending on that.


The idea you would have submarines without...


With all respect, I had to answer the question. Do we spend ?100


billion on nuclear bombs? Many former army generals have argued


that as having nuclear bombs which we can't use without the say-so of


the US isn't relevant to the security threats we face.


People watching world believe we should have nuclear bombs and others


who don't. We should be grown up enough as a democracy to have that


debate, do we spend that money on conventional Armed Forces? Social


care for elderly? Housing? Above all else, what Labour needs to focus on


our domestic policies, economy, housing, we aren't even having this


discussion now. Do you support the renewal of


Trident? I agree we need to focus on domestic


policies, the Stockport test also applies in Bristol.


What you think about the submarines without missiles?


I watched Jeremy, the first I have seen of that. We are undertaking a


defence review. I would much rather talk about domestic issues. I am one


of 12 Labour MPs out of 197 across the country outside London, someone


said there were more Labour MPs, more people have walked on the moon


than Labour MPs in the south of England. This is the real issue.


Danny is right, security and your family security, international


security, is an election issue. It's Jeremy Corbyn helpful to you


election campaign? He has been elected for his honesty


and straightforward attitude, to be commended. I wish we were rather


talking about other things. There is a debate to be had over


Trident. There is an issue about nuclear weapons in the world today.


There is any debate because Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to have that


debate. Everyone in the Labour Party says we need to take the fight to


the Tories on various issues but it is Jeremy Corbyn who specifically,


remember, there has been a settled consensus on nuclear defence policy


for decades. It is Jeremy Corbyn alone who has opened this up.


What about trade union laws, secondary picketing, sympathy


strikes, is that something to reopen?


We need to bring these laws into the 21st-century, we have some of the


most restrictive in the Western world, the words of Tony Blair. The


problem with existing trade union laws are they are so weighted in


favour of the employer. Even before the crash, employers were posting


record profits as workers's wagers were flat-lining or falling, because


they did not have strong enough trade unions.


Less demand in the economy, more people rely on tax credit is what it


meant. We can argue the biggest democratic movement in the country


represent the people who stack shelves in supermarkets, clean the


streets, should have more rights. That would be good for the economy.


They would have more sustainable wage rises.


On national-security and defence, you argue differently. On the


economy, on parts of society who feel they have been marginalised


young people, isn't it their way he could strike a chord?


No, we know how it ended with Ed Miliband. You can make the argument


but actually you can't, this is the problem. The slogan, we want a


return to secondary picketing, give the Falklands back to Argentina


negotiate with Isis, get rid of Britain's nuclear... That won't


work. If Jeremy Corbin wants to make those arguments, he is entitled. You


cannot on one hand say you have to pass the Stockport pub test, and on


the other hand have Jeremy Corbyn going... Asks to pass the Jolly


sailor test at the same time as having him go on Sunday Politics and


setting out that programme of what he is offering.


These were the questions directly posed to him. You can argue...


He said he wanted to change Labour's policy on secondary picketing... In


the leadership election, you are telling people that is why we should


vote for Jeremy Corbyn. They have voted for him. Now you can't say,


how do you ask him this? The point above all else is that


what they should be asking is what are his alternative ideas to what


the Government is doing. Universal Credit which will leave millions of


working families worse off. The housing crisis. The fact at the


moment we have a crisis in terms of the unions on the brink of


disintegrating. All I would say, the Labour leadership it is incumbent


upon them to pass that Jolly sailor test. Focus on housing, falling home


ownership, lack of council housing, jobs, social security, issues people


care about. BBC journalists will ask about issues more peripheral. The


Labour leadership needs to focus on those.


Is secondary picketing a crucial priority?


It is not a dull time to be a new Labour MP.


It is not a priority. How people are involved in their workplace,


workplace democracy, the rise of self-employment, how people work


today, is what we should be talking about. Bristol has a proud


industrial past which is changing, with new jobs. My constituents are


disbarred from those. This is the issue.


Thank you. Now the steel producer Tata has


announced it is cutting around 1,000 jobs today at plants including


Port Talbot and Llanwern in South The cuts deal a huge blow


to the industry and the Welsh economy, and come on top of almost


3,500 job losses in the UK steel The local MP for Port Talbot,


Stephen Kinnock, joins us now. The local MP for Port Talbot,


question mark yes, this crisis has been brewing for many years and


unfortunately we have a Government sitting on its hands, they have not


taken the action they needed on the dumping of Chinese steel.


There is a strategy for public procurement to maximise local


content. There isn't any imagination on business rates.


Crippling energy costs. This is not something which has come out in the


last month but has been brewing for years.


The garment has been asleep at the wheel. What will the impact be on


steel working communities? It will be huge, the Port Tolbert steel is


the beating heart of our economy will stop we need to look closely at


the package for redundancies, to help people to transition to other


jobs. A very challenging time for the community and our thoughts are


with the people directly affected and their families.


There are echoes of the 1980s, the closing of minds. We have the demise


of the steel industry. The Chinese steel perch and is more


competitive, should we accept that? There was an a level playing field,


Chinese steel is subsidised to the helps, it percent of Chinese steel


industry is state owned which has enabled them to dump their steel at


ridiculously low prices. We're not asking for special treatment but a


level playing field. Means using international trading rules to


Mitchell we get that fairness and level playing field. Steel is a


foundation industry, the homes we live in, cars we drive, this


Government has to decide, should the UK produce steel or not?


Should it be? I think it should, I have every


sympathy. A dreadful blow for Port Tolbert. We have a statement in the


House. Was the Government on -- asleep on


the job? The Prime Minister took it to the EU too late.


Not necessarily asleep on a job but the point about enforcing WTO rules,


the Government will push hard to make sure the rules are enforced and


the Chinese are not dumping steel. It is not too late, there are


negotiations. They had a steel summit when the plant in the Redcar


was closed down. ?18 million going into retraining to


see if we can move people away from overall reliance on these large


heavy industries which are sadly becoming more mobile across the


world. An awful lot of stuff is being done.


We live in a global market. We benefit from free trade. The idea we


can isolate ourselves from these changes is difficult.


The key as a Government is how to pluralise and diversify the economy


so not reliant on these leviathan industries.


In a way that is the Government's fault. In the years of coalition,


there was talk of diversifying, not being reliant on financial services.


Here we are in 2016, again, reliant on financial services and we have a


bubbling housing market. The garment failed its own test.


That is not fair. Give me a manufacturing industry which has


been balanced. Look at life sciences whether


Government has maintained funding in research, and the world it is


revered in a way it wasn't ten years ago. Look at Wales, Cardiff, a new


bioscience hub built there. Using that as a powerhouse for life


sciences in Wales, south Wales. Part of the new industrial strategy. What


has happened to manufacturing output?


These are intellectual poverty based businesses.


Has manufacturing output in the UK contracted or grown?


It has been flat. Last figures show it has contracted. It hasn't been a


rebalancing of the economy. I would dispute that. In my work,


Deputy Mayor for business and enterprise in London. One issue was


to make sure we won't reliant on financial services and we worked


hard with the south-east and the Welsh and Scots and in the north, to


make sure science was the area we concentrated on. That may take time


to build. There are more people employed in life sciences in the UK


than financial services. You are giving a partial picture.


Kit Malthouse has a point. Growth in some areas, but not necessarily


where you are. We have to look at diversifying our economy where we


can, but in order to do that, you need a Government that's prepared to


work in premiership with business and to have a proper industrial


strategy that looks at infrastructure, investment, energy,


skills, unfortunately we have a Secretary of State for Business who


is not even prepared to let the words industrial strategy has his


lips. He doesn't believe in it. He is looking at the banking sector as


a sector that he thinks is the future of the British economy as you


rightly say, Jo, we have got the biggest trade deficit since records


began in 1830, we have got a productivity crisis and a massive


unbalancing of the British economy with all the wealth and activity


being sucked into London and we've got a Government that's not prepared


to do anything about it. The time for warm words and excuses are over


and we need to see action. The idea of prioritising, after the crash,


the Government put up taxpayers money, hundreds of billions of


pounds to prop up that industry. Why won't they do something similar for


steel? Well, they are. They are putting ?80 million in to recognise


that some of these communities need to reskill for some of the new


industries that are coming along. Based in the same area? It is


interesting the previous conversation. We can do back what we


did in the 1970s and 1980s, isolate ourselves from the world and


industries over time will move overseas or we can make ourselves


more nimble and agile and give people the skills to access the new


jobs and the new industries. Spread them out as far and as wide as we


can. I want the jobs in my part of the world as well. Before we go,


Stephen kin OK on Jeremy Corbyn, but related to our discussion on


manufacturing. I mean his policy of unilateral disarmament would deprive


the defence industry of thousands of jobs, do you agree with him? No, I


don't. I'm committed to the UK keeping a arms deterrent. I think


we, but it is based on my experience having lived and worked in Russia


for three years and we've got to, this is not the time to be dropping


our guard. I will continue to argue forcefully for the renewal of tri


didn't and for the UK to keep a nuclear deterrent. What's your view


of Jeremy support of secondary picketing action, what will that do


to encourage investment? The risk we have is this can stir up a hornets


nest without a fully thought out strategy for how we're going to


demonstrate that Labour is actually a party of business. We are


pro-business. We're not pro business as usual. We want to mend capitalism


and not end it at all. This has got to be about a broader reform


package. We need to engage with the business community. I'd like to see


us working much more closely with business to set out our new


strategy, our industrial policy, our strategies for growth. And I think


that clearly, what we are talking about here with workplace


consultation, secondary picketing, that should be part of a broader


conversation. The risk is if you only talk about that, you're


isolating yourself from the business community and that's something


Labour can't afford to do and should not be doing. Stephen kin OK, thank


you. Thank you.


Now, in a moment, we'll be talking to two of Fleet Street's finest.


But, first, let's take a look at some of the other stories that


will be making the news in Westminster this week.


This afternoon, MPs will debate a petition calling for Donald Trump


to be banned from the UK, and another saying he should


On Tuesday, December's inflation figures will be published.


And Bank Of England Governor Mark Carney will be making a speech


Also on Tuesday, a report into how polling companies got the outcome


of last year's general election so wrong, will be published.


David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will face each other


in the their weekly clash at PMQs on Wednesday.


And Kate Hoey MP launches the Labour campaign to leave the EU,


And, on Thursday, David Cameron makes speech to World Economic Forum


We're joined now by Emily Ashton from Buzzfeed UK, that's an online


Welcome to both of you. No wonder they're looking bemused. Emily,


let's talk about the economy. Because we had conflicting reports


from George Osborne before Christmas, in the Autumn Statement,


it looked as if everything was rosy. More recently, he warned about a


dangerous cocktail that needs to be carefully avoided to ensure the


British economy stays on track. Is it looking more dangerous now with


the job losses? It is all a bit confusing to people, isn't it? In


the Autumn Statement, you know, you have suddenly, he has got money to


give away to various things and it looked very rosy and suddenly, happy


New Year, the year is going to be very gloomy indeed. Interest rates


are probably going to go up. The Middle East is looking a bit dodgy


and oil prices are plummeting and suddenly, yes, you see the job


losses and it is not looking good at all. It is confusing and the economy


is not looking as rosy as it was at the end of last year. Sam Coates,


was he wrong in the Autumn Statement and has he only just realised? Has


the Treasury sat him down and said, "Look, all the things that Emily


mentioned and tax receipts aren't going to be as strong as first


thought." I don't think he was wrong when he made the Autumn Statement,


but he took a risk and the risk was to spend the ?27 billion extra that


the independent office for responsibility said was available to


him because of a change in forecast, because of lower inflation and those


three things meant he did have this pot of money available, what they


can give in one Autumn Statement they can take away in a Budget. The


big worry for George Osborne is that when it comes round to the next big


fiscal event, this year's Budget, which will probably come before the


EU referendum and be critical in determining the mood of the country,


is that suddenly he finds that forecasts are a bit weaker partly


because of Middle East turmoil and partly because manufacturing is


showing signs of being in the doll droms, he has the weaker forecasts


and they mean there is less money to spend and all of a sudden, he faced


with a bill and payments that he has got to make rather than savings he


can distribute to the British public. In the last Parliament, he


didn't really spend any money. He was committed to spending money if


growth forecasts improved and using the cash to pay down the deficit,


but he hasn't done that in this Parliament, he is choosing to spend


the proceeds of growth. Emily, the EU referendum, an open


letter from the Conservative Paul Goodman to the Business Secretary to


come out for breaks it. Is this the first of many attempts we will see


to out Euro-sceptic Cabinet Ministers? There does seem to be a


real divide, isn't there? Between the Cabinet and the backbenchers.


There was a poll recently saying two-thirds of Tory backbenchers are


for a breaks it. That will change as we come up to the referendum. The


kAnt seem to be toeing the line at the moment. Cameron hasn't said he


is not against breaks it, but he is likely to do so once he gets his


deal possibly next month and only Chris Grayling so far has come out


for breaks it. So you can see why the Tory grass-roots are saying to


the Cabinet Ministers, please come on, back the party that put you into


this position and go for brexit and don't just toe the party line. Will


they resist bearing in mind the conditions put down by David


Cameron? It is seeming like some of them will. There are two things that


the fore most of Tory MPs minds. They got to work out what side they


are with this referendum and there is a leadership election probably


not that long afterwards and pick the wrong side and you might not get


favourable result when the new leader comes along and reshuffles


and you could potentially harm your political future because although


Cabinet Ministers are being allowed to campaign on either side of this


referendum, they're not being encouraged to do so. It is fair to


say that David Cameron and George Osborne are prepared to tolerate a


few decenters and they are not keen on it and there is a bit of


unofficial pressure. I'm speaking to Tory MPs, some of whom are


long-standing opponents of the European Union, who are starting to


go, "Maybe I should stay inside and vote in and go for the safe option


as David Cameron's renegotiation starts to come together and we get


to find out the elements of it." So I think the message is never over


estimate the spine of a Tory MP or a Labour MP! There is preferment and


promotion potentially ahead if they do the right thing. Right, I will


take your advice on that. Sam and Emily, thank you very much.


The various in and out groups revving up to campaign,


in a referendum that could come as soon as June.


Now, add to that list, Conservatives For Reform In Europe,


a group that will campaign to stay in, and is led by former


In a moment, I'll be talking to Mr Herbert,


a veteran of the campaign to keep Britain out of the euro.


But, yesterday, Ukip leader Nigel Farage questioned


Nick Herbert's eurosceptic credentials.


I've never regarded Nick Herbert as a staunch Euro-sceptic.


He briefly, in the 1990s, worked for an organisation that


campaigned to keep the pound. He was paid to do it.


I don't know, lawyers take on briefs, whether they believe


When he was a minister and since, he's never once advocated Britain


He's doing a job bolstering the Prime Minister.


Look, there's been lots of regulation, will Boris Johnson


I suspect that most senior politicians inside the Conservative


Party will put their careers before their conscience,


and will back the Prime Minister's position.


I mean you led the national No Campaign against adopting the euro


currency, were you ever really a Euro-sceptic? As Nigel Farage


questions. I was Euro-sceptic in the sense we were saying it was damaging


to join the euro at a time when a lot of the pro-EU people were saying


that was the only choice and some of those are saying we should stay in


the European Union now. I don't have much time for them or that argument,


but our slogan was Europe yes, euro no. I think Nigel, I understand, he


was put on-the-spot, looked to me like he was playing the man, but he


should be careful before he makes sweeping allegations. He said I'd


never advocated since then leaving the EU. I'm sure he didn't read my


book Why Vote Conservative last year. In it, I was clear that we


need to weigh up the costs and the benefits and if we didn't get


sufficient reform in the EU that we should be prepared to leave. I said


that. So it was wrong for him to suggest otherwise. I was attacked


yesterday from some people saying why is somebody who is a sceptic


joining this side of the argument? And others who are pro-European


saying this person suddenly appears to be pro-European. Or you're facing


both ways, let me put it like that. Are you going to campaign to stay


in? We need to Are you going to campaign to stay


the Prime Minister is saying that he needs to wait to see the outcome of


the renegotiations. We are supporting the Prime Minister's


position which is to say there needs to be substantial reform in Europe


to address key public concerns over issues like migration and ever


closer union provided there is that reform. The Prime Minister said he


wants to campaign to stay in, but he made clear that if there is not


reform and he said this in his Chatham House speech, he said we


will have to reconsider our option and that's certainly my view. Who do


you think should set this group up? I have been talking to


colleaguesment there are a lot of us who feel there needed to be a voice


in this debate and that I have, of course, had discussions with a lot


of people about that including the Prime Minister. Did Downing


of people about that including the ask you to set up this group? No,


they didn't ask me to set up this group. Of course, I talked to the


Prime Minister about this. To echo what the Prime Minister is doing? We


are supporting the Prime Minister's position. And the Chancellor? Did


you speak to the chancellor? I haven't spoken to the chancellor


about this. But, you know, there is a group of Conservatives who are


very strongly proEU and that's, I think, a completely respectable


position and they always have been and there is a group who want to


leave the European Union and that's, you know, they are entitled to that


view and I respect that view too, but in the body of the party, and I


think this is true in the country as well, there are people who think


there are things that are really wrong with the European Union. That


need to be reformed. They're worried about the drift to ever closer union


and they're worried about the competitiveness and they are worried


about migration and they want to see those changes and if they do see the


changes they will want to stay in. That was the voice we wanted to


give. You support the Prime Minister's stance come what may,


that's what you said in your opening remarks? We support the Prime


Minister's stance to secure a substantial renegotiation in the


European Union and it is very important that he does get that. I


think just as he has not ruled anything out, nor do we. Have you


been promised another ministerial job? Of course, I haven't been


promised another ministerial job. Just asking. I was the one who


resigned from the Government, for various reasons that we talked about


lots of times before. But this... You could become a minister after


the referendum? That depends. It is never my decision entirely. It is a


question of being asked. That's nothing to do with this. The point


is that all of us are going to have to decide because the public are


being given a say. A say that lots of people said the Prime Minister


would never deliver on and he did and now we've legislated for it and


there will be a referendum by the end of next year. So everyone will


have to decide as the public will be given that say, but what it means is


that Conservative members of Parliament will have to decide and


some people very clearly make up their minds on one side or the


other, but others like me, feel very strongly that this is a question of


weighing up the costs and the benefits and for me, provided that


we get reform, we can have the best of both worlds in the European


Union. The reformed European Union and there are dangers in leaving,


risks in leaving, that I think it is very important that we look at.


Do you like the sound of this particular group?


Nick is a smart guy, I welcome more information. Referendums are not the


moderate's friend. Anything that can give a rational, saying exposition


of one side or particular issues is to be welcomed.


Do you think Eurosceptic cabinet ministers and we know who they are,


including Michael Gove, Theresa May, should they come out with their


views? Not yet, no. The negotiations


haven't finished. The Prime Minister is batting at the crease in Europe.


The idea we should be undermining him if, and there are some people


with fundamental views. That is fine. But those people who are in


the middle and want the Prime Minister to win in Europe and then


take a view, for me, it is about ever closer union. Brussels seems


like an imperial capital. If the Prime Minister can pull us out, then


I start to feel comfortable. I would vote to leave today, if there was a


vote. If Boris Johnson leads the ad


campaign, he would add two points. Do you think he will vote to leave?


I have no idea, you must ask. We would if he would come on.


He has made some suggestions to the Prime Minister.


Would he be a good campaigner, heading up...


He is a formidable campaigner. You all view? I have always been in


favour. There is an appetite for more information and a proper


debate. Do you welcome Kate Hoey, her stance


and group? She has been there for many years.


Amongst Labour MPs, we are very united. 215 out of 232 on the


inside. But I do recognise, I visited Brussels with my


13-year-old, explaining to a new generation why I am so pro-European,


white our future is better there, is a good thing. I hope we get beyond


this dancing on a pimp within the Conservative Party, to have some


good debates. Thank you.


Now, this afternoon, MPs will debate whether to ban


Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump from Britain.


More than half-a-million people clicked on an online petition,


after Mr Trump called for Muslims to be banned from the US.


MPs will also debate an opposing petition which calls for him


It's not first parliamentary debate of its kind -


since they were first debated in Parliament,


hundreds of public petitions have been heard.


But how could you get your petition discussed by MPs?


Here's Ellie with her cut-out-and-keep Daily Politics


Every now and then, the House of Commons has to deal


with a petition on some subject or another and,


this time, it is on the rising cost of living.


It is a strong tradition, the mighty British petition.


75 Irish civil rights campaigners march from Trafalgar Square


to Downing Street, to hand in a petition demanding an inquiry


into the conduct of Londonderry police.


A chance for ordinary people to stand up and be counted


for the important things they care about.


Like being allowed to ride a Segway on the road.


They may look like slightly aggrieved Lottery winners,


but these people were petitioning to save the cheque.


And then, of course, there were a couple


about Jeremy Clarkson becoming Prime Minister,


keeping his job at the BBC, that sort of thing.


Successive governments have acknowledged the power of them.


Downing Street launched an e-petition site in Novemenber


2006, and it got beefed up last year.


Now, if a petition on the government website gets more than 100,000


signatures, a committee of MPs decides whether to give


Since 2011, there have been 32 petitions that started here that


ended up being debated in some way in Westminster.


This morning, there were well over 5,000 petitions on this site.


Of course, they have mixed amounts of support.


The one about Theresa May going on a night shift with a police


officer, allowing Armed Forces personnel to have a neatly trimmed


Or making antifreeze less tasty for cats,


The big one coming up is the one about him being allowed in the UK


Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown


of Muslims entering the United States, until our


country's representatives can figure out what the hell


More than 574,000 people signed the petition against Donald Trump


The MP introducing the debate doesn't agree with him,


but does think today is a crucial exercise in democracy.


It is extremely unlikely we'd have a vote.


But the whole point is we use Parliament, like many other debates


If there is an impassioned view that comes


from this debate, that it is in the national interest to ban Trump,


NEWSREEL: Mrs Hilda Davis is first in the ring


She aims to get 10,000 signatures on her Hands Off Our Food petition.


The top five most popular petitions on the Government's


website have two million signatures between them.


The idea of petitions isn't a new one, but modern technology


may have made the voice of the people a little louder.


We're joined now by the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett,


who supports banning Donald Trump from the UK.


And by Ukip MEP David Coburn, who does not.


Welcome to both of you, why should he be banned?


We have seen under the provisions of the Home Secretary to not give a


visa to someone whose presence is not conducive to the public good,


about 200 people have been banned, it is reasonable to say Donald Trump


with the kind of word we have been hearing fits that, he would not be


in terms of the early day motion signed, this would not be good for


community cohesion and it is reasonable not to give him a visa.


He could win nomination for the Republicans and a possibility he


might become president. We are talking about the situation


at the moment and his track record. It is unlikely but were it to happen


he would have two backpedal on some odd things he has said.


If someone later said they have said the wrong thing, people can change


their mind. Would it be good for community


cohesion? What he said was ridiculous. It is


not based on race, it is a religion, a grouping. Utterly ludicrous.


Why not ban him? I am a great believer in freedom of speech, we


are a libertarian party. I would rather defeat the man in the public


arena in discussion. Like Nick Griffin who was taken apart. They


kept him off TV for years, and finally he was destroyed on TV.


He also highlights things now and again which are not entirely being


ignored by the public. Like what? The problem is generally


politically, with the Middle East, he is willing to talk about it.


Other people want to hide it. The thing about Donald Trump is the


makes Doctor Strangelove seem like a documentary rather than fiction. It


is terrifying thought he could be president. He makes a lot of money


in business. But in terms of running the world, that is worrying. But we


cannot ignore him. Why not take him on in the way David


was saying, defeat him if you don't agree?


We are in a different situation to the BNP, which was part of British


society. This is a question of allowing someone in. We have made


the decision in 200 previous cases, the guy who built himself as a --


billed himself as a seduction expert but who was fired against women.


There is something different. The trunk is in a different


category? He is not advocating the sort of


stuff Islamic State are. A wholly different situation. If he


had been anybody else, you would be screaming about other things.


I love the way there is a problem as far as I am concerned, this is a


women's issue. I am not happy about what is happening. You don't scream


about that. Let us pick up on freedom of speech.


People are allowed to say what they think.


The great principle of freedom of speech, 6000 British people have


signed a petition. 40,000 signed on the other side. MPs


are debating what the public has told them they are concerned about.


A small step forward for democracy. With a pond that doesn't represent


the people. Is this a waste of time?


I agree with Natalie, the new position system does allow people to


have some kind of debate and say. There does need to be some kind of


look at what comes in. But that is a forward step.


Should he be banned? I don't think so. You should use the


banning order very sparingly. I will be interested to see what people


say. Do you agree he does say things that


need to be discussed on issues like the Middle East?


A broken clock is right twice a day. He will happen randomly on issues


which may be present. The truth is he is a clown. His words were foul


and detestable and we should acknowledge that.


He is doing well in the polls. The debate today is a good idea. If


we can bring home to Americans their decision about who they elect and


select as candidate has international implications, then we


should. I don't think we should ban him, if


he becomes president, but he hasn't made many friends in Scotland where


he has an awful lot of money invested.


I disagree with almost everything he says. What he said about the former


First Minister... Substitute other ethnic minorities


in his face and what reaction with there have been?


He is not the only leader talking about Muslims. The Czech president


has said it is impossible to integrate Muslims into communities,


post an instance like Cologne. Is that equally offensive?


There is a problem that has to be discussed, there is a problem


integrating people with too many people coming. That is the problem


in Outer Paris, far too many have arrived. They are not being


integrated into French society which is why we have jihadi is.


In Scotland, we don't have bad race relations because we don't have too


many people. I have to stop you...


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was: What song does Jeremy Corbyn sing to his cat?


God Save The Queen, by the Sex Pistols.


Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree,


Karin and Kit, what's the correct answer?


The answer is Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree.


You have thought about this, well done. Jeremy Corbyn does not have a


name for the cat. Ours go missing regularly.


That's all for today. Thanks to our guests.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories


Do join me then. Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles