18/01/2016 Daily Politics

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.