:00:36. > :00:39.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:43.Should big companies like Google pay more in tax?
:00:44. > :00:46.Labour certainly thinks so, and so too does Boris Johnson.
:00:47. > :00:49.Google's already said it will pay ?130 million in back tax,
:00:50. > :00:56.The Government has confirmed it's considering taking in up to 3,000
:00:57. > :00:58.unaccompanied child migrants who've made their way to Europe
:00:59. > :01:06.The in campaign claims British business is better off
:01:07. > :01:15.Surprise, surprise, those who want to leave say that's a load
:01:16. > :01:18.And MPs warn charities to put their house in order
:01:19. > :01:25.and bring to an end unscrupulous fund-raising tactics.
:01:26. > :01:38.And former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,
:01:39. > :01:44.George Osborne is coming under fire over
:01:45. > :01:49.the internet giant's deal to pay ?130 million in back taxes.
:01:50. > :01:51.A number of Labour MPs, including the Shadow Chancellor
:01:52. > :01:53.John McDonnell, have argued it's not nearly enough
:01:54. > :01:57.and Google have been let off the hook.
:01:58. > :02:02.Here's the Chancellor discussing the deal over the weekend.
:02:03. > :02:05.An important principle in our system is that people's tax affairs
:02:06. > :02:09.are confidential between themselves and our independent HMRC.
:02:10. > :02:12.But the fact that Google are paying taxes, I think,
:02:13. > :02:16.These were taxes on profits made when there was
:02:17. > :02:26.Now to have Labour politicians complaining about it is a bit rich.
:02:27. > :02:34.Can George Osborne really claim this as a success? I think it is success,
:02:35. > :02:40.progress, but only a start of progress. As George said, they paid
:02:41. > :02:45.no tax at all in the past few years. The new profit diversion tax is
:02:46. > :02:50.putting a message to companies that if they sell goods and services to
:02:51. > :02:54.people in the UK and make a profit, they should be taxed on the profits
:02:55. > :02:59.in the UK and Google will now pay up, and it needs to pay more and in
:03:00. > :03:11.the future its full share. You admit it is not paying its full share.
:03:12. > :03:15.Absolutely right. This is a good start, but only a start. There are
:03:16. > :03:19.other companies who have to pay up what they should have been paying
:03:20. > :03:24.and make sure that from now on they are paying their full share of tax
:03:25. > :03:29.in the UK. It is better than paying no tax in terms of being taxed on
:03:30. > :03:33.profits, which happened under Labour. It does not send a good
:03:34. > :03:47.signal that you can get away with paying 2% of tax on sales. 2013,
:03:48. > :03:50.Google had sales around ?4 billion in the UK and only paying 130
:03:51. > :03:54.million over ten years. Why did they not pay under Labour? This review
:03:55. > :03:58.was conducted. The conclusion ?130 million is OK, it is not good
:03:59. > :04:03.enough. A lot of people are struggling at the end of January to
:04:04. > :04:12.do their tax return and are not able to chat with HMRC to say, maybe I
:04:13. > :04:17.will pay ?1000 this year. They have to pay what is their fair share. Was
:04:18. > :04:22.it a mistake Labour did not pressure companies like Google at the time?
:04:23. > :04:26.Is it rich for John MacDonald to start squealing about not enough
:04:27. > :04:34.pressure being put on when none was put on under Labour? -- John
:04:35. > :04:39.McDonnell. Not enough tax was paid in that period but for George
:04:40. > :04:46.Osborne to say it is a success, a good start, it is a start but not a
:04:47. > :04:49.good start. It does not send a good signal to companies in those
:04:50. > :04:54.discussions that they can get away with a tax bill of this size. If
:04:55. > :05:00.these are what is called a sweetheart deal, in other words they
:05:01. > :05:05.make a deal and pay some tax earned on profits, but not the full out, it
:05:06. > :05:11.looks as if it has been signed and sealed with HMRC? I do not like cosy
:05:12. > :05:18.deals and there needs to be greater transparency, all companies are
:05:19. > :05:23.subject to it. There was a grey area over many years using on the face of
:05:24. > :05:32.its legal devices not to pay tax and stop allowed by successive
:05:33. > :05:36.governments. It is the chance's fault and responsibility. It is the
:05:37. > :05:40.government instructing HMRC as to how tough they should be. We need to
:05:41. > :05:44.ensure they are treated in the same way as other taxpayers in this
:05:45. > :05:54.country and a measure of success will be in future years that Google
:05:55. > :05:59.and the rest pay more tax. How much should they be paying? 20%. They
:06:00. > :06:04.should be paying the full corporation tax. It is not good
:06:05. > :06:09.enough to say we employ a lot of people and pay a lot of national
:06:10. > :06:14.Insurance, so do others. It is to do with complex arrangements they have
:06:15. > :06:20.put in place to minimise tax. It is diverted profits are unfairly.
:06:21. > :06:25.Starbucks have changed headquarters from benevolence to the UK and we
:06:26. > :06:29.need to see more of that going on. Rachel, would you call for action
:06:30. > :06:34.against these companies in terms of a boycott? There was a
:06:35. > :06:40.people'sprotest against Starbucks. It is up to people to decide. I am
:06:41. > :06:44.not going to advocate picking on one company or another, it is up to
:06:45. > :06:49.people to decide. With the living wage, eight campaign I have
:06:50. > :06:55.advocated, one of the great things is that you get a mark to say, I am
:06:56. > :06:59.a living wage employer. We can decide as consumers if we want to
:07:00. > :07:04.spend money in a shop that pays the living wage or not and there should
:07:05. > :07:09.be something like that on whether you pay your fair share of tax so we
:07:10. > :07:14.can make informed decisions as consumers. We pay tax on what we
:07:15. > :07:19.earn which pays for schools, hospitals, roads and trains. Google
:07:20. > :07:25.benefit from those things and do not pay in. Boris Johnson has said the
:07:26. > :07:32.same. Consumers have a part to play. There was a BBC programme about a
:07:33. > :07:36.village in Wales. Declaring itself a fair tax village. Working out it
:07:37. > :07:42.could avoid tax by underhand means but does not want to do it.
:07:43. > :07:45.Companies, as part of their marketing promotion, should show
:07:46. > :07:50.they are paying a fair share of tax in the UK and do it legitimately and
:07:51. > :07:55.therefore you can buy things safely from it. They have a responsibility
:07:56. > :07:59.to ensure we have a tax code that means people have to pay their fair
:08:00. > :08:05.share will stop you cannot blame the companies, the government has to get
:08:06. > :08:11.a grip and make sure everybody pays tax, especially the biggest company.
:08:12. > :08:13.130 million is not a grip. It is a drop in the ocean.
:08:14. > :08:17.Tatler Magazine has published the Tatler List -
:08:18. > :08:20.a run down of 623 people who they claim really matter.
:08:21. > :08:25.However, there also appears to be an even more glaring omission.
:08:26. > :08:28.So our question for today is, according to Tatler,
:08:29. > :08:42.At the end of the show, Tim and Rachel, who I'm afraid
:08:43. > :08:46.are also not on the list, will give us the correct answer.
:08:47. > :08:53.We don't even have the date of the referendum on Britain's
:08:54. > :08:55.membership of the EU yet, but already there are squabbles
:08:56. > :08:59.between the campaigns around figures.
:09:00. > :09:02.The latest disputed statistic is around whether British firms
:09:03. > :09:10.Stuart Rose, chairman of Britain Stronger in Europe,
:09:11. > :09:15.says the EU is worth an average of ?670,000 in extra trade to every
:09:16. > :09:19.UK business exporting or importing within the bloc.
:09:20. > :09:23.He used data published by the Centre for European Reform think tank,
:09:24. > :09:26.which found UK goods trade with the EU was 55% higher
:09:27. > :09:32.However, one campaign group on the other side -
:09:33. > :09:35.Vote Leave - said this was nonsense and in fact,
:09:36. > :09:37.the single market has failed to have a significant impact
:09:38. > :09:44.They point to research by think tank Civitas,
:09:45. > :09:49.who found membership of the EU has had "no discernable benefit" for UK
:09:50. > :09:51.exports, proved "not far short of a disaster" for Britain.
:09:52. > :09:56.There are other disputed figures, too.
:09:57. > :10:00.Britain Stronger in Europe say Britain's EU membership costs a net
:10:01. > :10:09.But Vote Leave put the cost at ?350 million a week by using
:10:10. > :10:17.I might have left the million off the last one.
:10:18. > :10:20.And Britain Stronger in Europe say 13% of laws are made in Brussels,
:10:21. > :10:23.whereas Vote Leave put this figure much higher, between 65-75%.
:10:24. > :10:25.Let's talk now to Will Straw, who's the executive director
:10:26. > :10:29.And to Robert Oxley, who's head of media for Vote Leave.
:10:30. > :10:38.Welcome. Stuart Rose says membership is worth an average of 670,000 to
:10:39. > :10:44.British businesses, how do you calculate that? Based on an
:10:45. > :10:49.independent study that the centre has done. They looked at the impact
:10:50. > :10:54.of being part of the European Union against not being in the EU and of
:10:55. > :10:58.what it has meant for trade performance which they think has
:10:59. > :11:05.given a 55% boost and if you take the number, divided by the number of
:11:06. > :11:11.trading businesses in UK. This is looking at goods,. Services, and you
:11:12. > :11:21.get an average figure of 670,000 per business. It will be bigger for some
:11:22. > :11:27.and smaller further for others. It is theoretical. It is based on real
:11:28. > :11:31.numbers, taking an estimate. You are right, looking at the impact of
:11:32. > :11:37.being in the EU and it is the case that the other side will put
:11:38. > :11:41.something else across. The overwhelming majority of businesses,
:11:42. > :11:45.big and small, entrepreneurs and more established businesses, are
:11:46. > :11:50.saying it is in Britain's interests to be in the EU, certainly of the
:11:51. > :11:55.trade, low prices and jobs it creates and investment. Let's
:11:56. > :11:58.broaden the argument and look at what our businesses and others
:11:59. > :12:02.saying about the benefits of being in the EU. Not all businesses say
:12:03. > :12:07.that but if you look at the figures in terms of it being a model, that
:12:08. > :12:11.is how you come up with the calculations, it is powerful,
:12:12. > :12:20.?670,000 to British business, you would not match that if these UK
:12:21. > :12:27.came out? I do wonder what it is about is the European centre for
:12:28. > :12:29.reform. You do not think it is an independent model? You can pick a
:12:30. > :12:35.number that focuses on trade and it laws exports and services which make
:12:36. > :12:42.up a large part of the economy. If you look at the overall British
:12:43. > :12:48.exports, British exports to the EU, about 45%, it is declining, as is
:12:49. > :12:52.the share of the world GDP. There are numbers that show the EU is a
:12:53. > :12:56.declining relevance to the British market. You do not dispute the
:12:57. > :13:01.numbers themselves, you say there are other things you can look at? It
:13:02. > :13:06.is a case of which facts you cherry pick. If you look at a truly
:13:07. > :13:11.independent report today, is says the EU has been dismal for export
:13:12. > :13:17.growth for the UK. If you take the safe option, a free-trade deal, that
:13:18. > :13:23.the European centre for reform in this report, which is two years old,
:13:24. > :13:28.they say a free-trade deal would happen. We will get onto the
:13:29. > :13:33.free-trade deals. If you say it would be a disaster if Britain left
:13:34. > :13:38.the EU, it is true to say that bilateral deals could be set up,
:13:39. > :13:44.have been set up by other countries, and there has been no reason for the
:13:45. > :13:48.EU not to set up bilateral treaties that would equal the sort of money
:13:49. > :13:53.we currently make. This is where the debate needs to go, what is it that
:13:54. > :13:58.those wanting to leave want Britain's trading relationship to
:13:59. > :14:04.be? Like Norway, Switzerland, that have access to the single market but
:14:05. > :14:08.accept free movement. Let's stick to trade. If they did on the basis of
:14:09. > :14:13.the countries you just mentioned, do you agree they would be able to...
:14:14. > :14:19.British business would benefit to the tune of the figures you are
:14:20. > :14:24.talking about. We have no idea what trade deals would be negotiated. The
:14:25. > :14:29.United States trade representative said if we left the EU there would
:14:30. > :14:35.not be a trade relationship between the UK and US, they are only dealing
:14:36. > :14:43.with countries such as the EU. Other countries are coming together to act
:14:44. > :14:47.as a bloc and get a better deal for consumers. What evidence they have
:14:48. > :14:52.that countries in the EU like Germany and France would give us a
:14:53. > :14:59.deal that is as good as it is at the moment? Why wouldn't they? How will
:15:00. > :15:04.you persuade... Can I come back? I will when Robert has come in. I am
:15:05. > :15:07.sure there is every chance of setting up a bilateral arrangement
:15:08. > :15:13.but you cannot guarantee it and do not know how long it will take.
:15:14. > :15:18.In the world are death and taxes but if you look at the Independent
:15:19. > :15:23.reports, not just the Eurosceptics, they are clear that every incentive
:15:24. > :15:28.is there, for a free-trade deal. We can save the ?350 million... It's a
:15:29. > :15:32.risk. It's not, it is a decision we have to take if we vote to leave.
:15:33. > :15:35.The message from the Britain stronger in Europe campaign is that
:15:36. > :15:40.no better relationship as possible. We are saying we have this
:15:41. > :15:44.relationship with the EU which cost us ?350 million per week, enough for
:15:45. > :15:47.a new hospital. It limits democracy because it takes decisions away from
:15:48. > :15:51.Westminster and means politicians are less accountable. It hurts
:15:52. > :15:55.people in their pockets in terms of Mauritz pensive goods. It takes the
:15:56. > :15:59.decisions away. I think actually, we could leave and do the free-trade
:16:00. > :16:03.deals in the same way that Chile and Peru have done them but we could
:16:04. > :16:08.also do them outside of the EU with those global, emerging markets which
:16:09. > :16:11.we are limited from. I think we can go for a bit more than July and
:16:12. > :16:14.Peru. We can go for the best of both welcome in the EU, getting the best
:16:15. > :16:18.deal from the single market but also new deals with countries like India
:16:19. > :16:23.and America. We will get those on much better terms as a group of 500
:16:24. > :16:29.million consumers than we would as 65 million consumers. The cost of EU
:16:30. > :16:33.membership, fascinating as it is, before you continue, the difficulty
:16:34. > :16:37.is getting objective facts. Perhaps it is impossible. In the end, won't
:16:38. > :16:43.it just come down to people's hearts in this particular issue? I think
:16:44. > :16:45.that is a real problem. Listening to these two exchange facts, and
:16:46. > :16:49.another fact I heard this morning is that when the EU does trade deals
:16:50. > :16:52.with other countries, there's bigger growth by countries like Switzerland
:16:53. > :16:58.and Norway with those countries rather than with the EU. We can
:16:59. > :17:02.interpret statistics in any way. But the problem is, Mr and Mrs Smith in
:17:03. > :17:06.one Acacia Ave in Worthing are going to be confused by this and at the
:17:07. > :17:10.end of the day, we need to have a proper, frank debate based on fact
:17:11. > :17:18.and not scare stories about what might happen. They are... Neither of
:17:19. > :17:23.these gentlemen, I put to you, are lying. It is about how you view...
:17:24. > :17:28.Truths. The economics. Are they telling the truth when it comes to
:17:29. > :17:32.statistics? Part of the problem is you don't know what the
:17:33. > :17:36.counterfactual is. We don't know what things would be like if we were
:17:37. > :17:40.outside the European Union. But then I think people would be taking a
:17:41. > :17:46.huge risk if we did come out. The Prime Minister, the Vote Leave
:17:47. > :17:50.groups don't know what the world would be like if we were outside. If
:17:51. > :17:55.I was a business or I worked for a business, I would be very concerned
:17:56. > :17:59.about leaving and what it would mean for my job if I traded with Europe
:18:00. > :18:03.but not just with Europe, as well if you trade with the US, are we going
:18:04. > :18:07.to get those trade relationships we have before? Also, if we are going
:18:08. > :18:11.to have access to free markets, that we have at the moment, the reality
:18:12. > :18:16.is we are going to have to pay into the system so that the extra
:18:17. > :18:19.hospital a week won't just be there. Finally, let me say that we will
:18:20. > :18:24.also still be subject to the free movement rules that Norway and
:18:25. > :18:29.Switzerland and others are. If we were to go down the same route as
:18:30. > :18:34.Norway and Switzerland... Without knowing that, it's a massive risk.
:18:35. > :18:39.Do you feel as uncertain over the prospect, if it were to happen? No,
:18:40. > :18:44.I can see there is a future for the UK outside of the EU. I'm not scared
:18:45. > :18:48.about that. I've not made my mind up because I'm waiting for what the
:18:49. > :18:52.deal is going to be. Because it is though substantive? The way I look
:18:53. > :18:55.at it and where I see a problem with this argument, I was at an EU
:18:56. > :18:59.negotiation this morning, is that it's not just about what is good for
:19:00. > :19:02.the UK and Europe. It has to be about what is good for the whole of
:19:03. > :19:08.the EU. The point that Robert makes is right, the share of the GDP is
:19:09. > :19:12.60% of what it was in 1990. There are risks, not just in coming out
:19:13. > :19:17.but in staying in an increasingly uncompetitive, shrinking... This is
:19:18. > :19:22.post-Euro crisis and of course the current migration crisis and you can
:19:23. > :19:25.why people would have concerns. Can I ask you about something
:19:26. > :19:31.specifically, the number of laws that are made in Brussels. You put
:19:32. > :19:34.the figure at 13%. Where do you get the figure? The House of Commons
:19:35. > :19:40.library. You could not get much more independent. It is only part of the
:19:41. > :19:43.rule book. They are talking about a thing called directives. Those are
:19:44. > :19:47.the ones where the House of Commons looks at the rules which come out of
:19:48. > :19:50.the EU that the UK has to put through Parliament. There's a lot of
:19:51. > :19:54.EU rules, many more than the directives, which go straight into
:19:55. > :19:59.law. If you look at the wider EU rule book, the things which don't go
:20:00. > :20:05.through Parliament, don't get scrutinised or a chance to discuss
:20:06. > :20:11.how we're to implement... That is 65%. How much of an impact do they
:20:12. > :20:14.have on the UK? A lot of EU wide regulations won't necessarily have
:20:15. > :20:19.any major impact on the UK and they would have been the sort of thing
:20:20. > :20:22.the UK would have passed anyway. When you pass the regulation like
:20:23. > :20:26.that, they do a cost impact assessment. It puts it close to ?70
:20:27. > :20:32.billion, excluding the kind of regulations like on green issues and
:20:33. > :20:36.working time directive is which I know you are going to talk about.
:20:37. > :20:38.Are you being misleading? The problem with this ultimate is that
:20:39. > :20:42.it only looks at one side of the equation, the cost. But what the
:20:43. > :20:46.government will do in bring in any regulation is look at the cost
:20:47. > :20:50.benefit analysis, the benefits of the regulations. Regardless of the
:20:51. > :20:54.figure, decide would love to get rid of the regulations that protect
:20:55. > :20:58.workers, that give us paid holidays, maternity and paternity leave. One
:20:59. > :21:01.person's cost is another's benefit. We need to be cattle entering the
:21:02. > :21:07.figures around and look at the entire picture. -- need to be
:21:08. > :21:10.careful. That is the question, you talk about regulations and you never
:21:11. > :21:14.say what they are and they could be regulations that a lot of people
:21:15. > :21:17.value. I said specifically I was excluding the ones on green and
:21:18. > :21:23.social employment. If we are going to talk about where these decisions
:21:24. > :21:25.should be made, in Brussels or Westminster, we will probably
:21:26. > :21:28.disagree outside of the EU debate about how certain rules are done in
:21:29. > :21:32.this country but the point is, we don't get to vote for the people who
:21:33. > :21:34.make those decisions. Thank you for joining us. We could go on forever!
:21:35. > :21:36.Now to the timing of the EU referendum.
:21:37. > :21:38.Yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show, Scotland's First Minister Nicola
:21:39. > :21:43.Two reasons why I would not be in favour of a June referendum.
:21:44. > :21:46.One, you might interpret it as being a bit selfish
:21:47. > :21:49.but the Scottish election is in May, and indeed the Welsh,
:21:50. > :21:52.Northern Irish and London elections are in May.
:21:53. > :21:55.To have a referendum campaign starting in parallel would be
:21:56. > :21:58.disrespectful to those important elections.
:21:59. > :22:02.You still have seven weeks after that.
:22:03. > :22:05.But given the statutory campaign period for the UK
:22:06. > :22:10.referendum, you would undoubtedly start to confuse the issues.
:22:11. > :22:13.The second reason is that I think it would be better for David Cameron
:22:14. > :22:17.to leave more time between, if he does
:22:18. > :22:20.get a deal at the February European Council, to leave more time
:22:21. > :22:22.between the deal and the point of decision.
:22:23. > :22:25.One of the big problems I see for the In campaign at the moment
:22:26. > :22:29.is that as far as David Cameron is concerned,
:22:30. > :22:31.it is very much focused on these narrow issues of renegotiation.
:22:32. > :22:34.In actual fact, if the In campaign is going to prevail,
:22:35. > :22:37.it is going to have to become a positive in principle
:22:38. > :22:40.campaign about why it is better for the UK to stay within
:22:41. > :22:52.Nicola Sturgeon, there. She has got a point, hasn't she, Tim, over the
:22:53. > :22:57.timing? She has a point and I agree that we don't want the EU referendum
:22:58. > :23:00.mixed up with Scottish, London and Welsh elections. But I agree with
:23:01. > :23:04.her for very different reasons. I want to have a referendum as late as
:23:05. > :23:08.possible. The Prime Minister has offered a referendum by the end of
:23:09. > :23:17.2017. This is a once in a generation opportunity to try to get some kind
:23:18. > :23:19.of closure over what has been a very unhappy relationship over many years
:23:20. > :23:21.between Europe and the British people. I want to make sure that
:23:22. > :23:24.there are not, the day after the referendum result if it is a narrow
:23:25. > :23:28.majority to stay in, we have got a lot of people saying, "You had
:23:29. > :23:32.another 18 months, you could have negotiated for even better deal, why
:23:33. > :23:35.didn't you go to the wire?" I don't want people to have the use of
:23:36. > :23:39.crying foul that it was not a genuine vote. It has to be a genuine
:23:40. > :23:43.vote and he has to go to the 11th hour to get the best deal for the UK
:23:44. > :23:47.and the future of Europe. Do you think he is keen to have it in June,
:23:48. > :23:53.to rush it, as you would see it, because it is his best chance of
:23:54. > :23:56.winning to stay in on his so-called re-negotiated settlement? There's
:23:57. > :24:01.lots of factors and clearly the Prime Minister wants a Yes vote. But
:24:02. > :24:04.he think that is his best chance? He thinks he can get some low hanging
:24:05. > :24:07.fruit and I think he will get things which will surprise people as well,
:24:08. > :24:11.now and let's have the vote to dispel the uncertainty he's on --
:24:12. > :24:15.afraid. But I don't think it will cut the mustard if we get a narrow
:24:16. > :24:17.vote in favour and the argument will go on, not just within the
:24:18. > :24:21.Conservative Party but the country as I thought which is not good for
:24:22. > :24:26.the stability of Europe for years coming forward. Is there a
:24:27. > :24:28.legitimacy question if he does go as early as June? He says he could have
:24:29. > :24:38.a settlement and then wants to put that to the people as quickly as
:24:39. > :24:41.possible. If there's a settlement, I think we have the vote. In June?
:24:42. > :24:44.Yes, not for political reasons but because I think it's the right thing
:24:45. > :24:47.to do. If you are a business and you are deciding whether to invest in
:24:48. > :24:52.Leeds or Madrid, then we want to resolve that question of whether we
:24:53. > :24:55.are in the European Union or not. Uncertainty is bad for business and
:24:56. > :24:59.bad for the people who work for business. I think, let's resolve the
:25:00. > :25:03.uncertainty. We have been going on about a referendum for years now.
:25:04. > :25:09.Everyone knows it is coming. Let's get the deal. Let's hope it is as
:25:10. > :25:12.good as possible for Britain. And then let's get on and make the
:25:13. > :25:17.decision because that is in the best interests of the country, whatever
:25:18. > :25:21.the decision. Does it put your campaign at a disadvantage if it is
:25:22. > :25:25.in June? Absolutely not, we prepared for the earliest date expected and
:25:26. > :25:28.June is likely, for the reason that the Prime Minister does not want
:25:29. > :25:33.much good of his trivial renegotiation. You don't know what
:25:34. > :25:37.it is yet! They have made their mind up and the rest of us are waiting to
:25:38. > :25:41.see. You have said you will stay in no matter what. And you want to
:25:42. > :25:45.leave. We see the maximum of what it will achieve and we saw that in the
:25:46. > :25:49.Donald Tusk letter. We will be ready for June. The grassroots campaigning
:25:50. > :25:53.we have got, we had 100 Fifty St stalls in January and they will
:25:54. > :25:58.deliver the leaflets and the In campaign will have to rely on
:25:59. > :26:02.Goldman Sachs to paper their leaflets. They're probably not bad
:26:03. > :26:06.people to pay for it. Are the hedge funds supporting them? It's a race
:26:07. > :26:09.to the bottom if we criticise each other's donors. People have an
:26:10. > :26:13.interest in it. Goldman Sachs have given us money because they have
:26:14. > :26:17.done the economic analysis. I appreciate that. They have shown the
:26:18. > :26:20.economic impact which is at risk from the referendum that their
:26:21. > :26:24.research. We will have directions and I'm sure you will as well from a
:26:25. > :26:27.wide range of people so let's not get silly. Whichever side of the
:26:28. > :26:30.argument it seems you actually stand, it is important, which may
:26:31. > :26:35.then make your point about waiting so long difficult for some bigger
:26:36. > :26:37.businesses. Waiting another 18 months to get an absolutely
:26:38. > :26:41.definitive, that was the best possible deal we could do, take it
:26:42. > :26:47.or leave it, I think is worth waiting for. Whichever way they go,
:26:48. > :26:51.they would like the uncertainty to be resolved. Let me ask another
:26:52. > :26:53.question because we are not entirely certain in terms of Parliamentary
:26:54. > :26:59.process whether there would be an option for MPs, if they did not like
:27:00. > :27:02.the idea of a June referendum because of the reasons Nicola
:27:03. > :27:07.Sturgeon said all because of the reasons you have said, is there any
:27:08. > :27:13.way Parliament could stop it? I presume we could. There is. It sets
:27:14. > :27:16.out a timetable but presumably if the majority of MPs did not like how
:27:17. > :27:20.it was panning out we could force a vote to overturn the legislation.
:27:21. > :27:24.But the likelihood of there being a majority of unlikely because Labour
:27:25. > :27:28.would not vote against timings for the reasons Nicola Sturgeon said. I
:27:29. > :27:32.don't know what Labour's position would be but my position is, once
:27:33. > :27:35.the Prime Minister has got the renegotiation, whatever it brings,
:27:36. > :27:38.we should get on and take the decision to the people. At the end
:27:39. > :27:42.of the day, the people will decide. We should give them the chance.
:27:43. > :27:44.Thank you for joining us. I'm sure we will see you gentlemen again.
:27:45. > :27:46.Now, a committee of MPs has warned charities that their fund-raising
:27:47. > :27:48.activities could be controlled by law -
:27:49. > :27:52.unless a new voluntary regulator succeeds in cleaning up the sector.
:27:53. > :27:55.The regulator is being set up following last summer's scandals,
:27:56. > :27:59.when unscrupulous fund-raisers were accused of targeting
:28:00. > :28:03.Let's talk now to the chairman of the Public Administration
:28:04. > :28:09.Committee, Bernard Jenkin, who's in Central Lobby.
:28:10. > :28:17.Welcome back to the daily politics. Why isn't there going to be a state
:28:18. > :28:23.regulator? Why are you leaving the second -- sector to regular it
:28:24. > :28:26.itself? That is what the outcome of the Everington Review recommended
:28:27. > :28:31.and that is the recommendation the government has accepted. Really, it
:28:32. > :28:34.will be a terrible indictment of charity trustees themselves if they
:28:35. > :28:38.really can't run their charities without a state regulator for
:28:39. > :28:42.fundraising. Why should they be given another chance? We've had all
:28:43. > :28:46.these dreadful stories of the old and vulnerable being targeted and
:28:47. > :28:52.particularly the case of Olive Cooke, who ended up killing herself.
:28:53. > :28:55.Should they have another chance? Be careful because it is not
:28:56. > :28:59.necessarily that the fundraising activities charities led to that
:29:00. > :29:08.suicide. But the important issue here is that you can't regulate
:29:09. > :29:11.charities to have good trustees by state regulation. We have all this
:29:12. > :29:16.financial regulation and we still finished up with badly run banks.
:29:17. > :29:21.Regulation does not of itself make people behave better. What we need
:29:22. > :29:24.to communicate is what people's responsibilities as charities, and
:29:25. > :29:27.charity trusts, actually are, that they understand the regulations and
:29:28. > :29:32.in this case, the case of the charities that we interviewed, it is
:29:33. > :29:36.quite clear that trustees did not know what was going on. That is not
:29:37. > :29:39.an excuse. They have learned some lessons and we must make sure that
:29:40. > :29:44.the lessons are implemented across all charities, particularly large
:29:45. > :29:49.ones that have very high value fundraising efforts. What about the
:29:50. > :29:56.bad practices? What specifically have you been looking at? What do
:29:57. > :29:59.you want to see change? There was a complete lack of data control. We
:30:00. > :30:03.have the Information Commissioner in front of six training how unhappy he
:30:04. > :30:07.was, and maybe he needs new powers and we recommend that we look at
:30:08. > :30:11.that. We want the government to look at it. But the Information
:30:12. > :30:15.Commissioner as a statutory regulator should be more on the
:30:16. > :30:18.ball, tackling the buying and selling of data without people's
:30:19. > :30:21.consent, the abuse of the Telephone preference service, when people
:30:22. > :30:24.think they have opted out of cold calling, and they find they are
:30:25. > :30:29.still subject to it. What we found with charities, not so much the
:30:30. > :30:33.charities but the contractors that they had employed, actually, there
:30:34. > :30:36.was a very cavalier attitude to the rules, even the statically rules.
:30:37. > :30:39.These were rules to be got around as best they could because they had
:30:40. > :30:43.financial targets to try to raise as much money as possible. So you ended
:30:44. > :30:48.up with a training lesson in one of these companies about how to get
:30:49. > :30:53.money out of a 90-year-old -- 98 he rolled woman, even if she was saying
:30:54. > :30:57.she was confused and vulnerable. -- 98-year-old woman. It is outrageous
:30:58. > :31:00.and the charity's trustees were appalled as soon as they found out.
:31:01. > :31:06.But they should have known what was being done in their name.
:31:07. > :31:16.You say you have no doubt most charities do not engage in this
:31:17. > :31:21.conduct. Do you think people might now be less willing to give money to
:31:22. > :31:26.them? That is what has happened with more people less inclined to give
:31:27. > :31:30.money over the telephone. The effect of failing to manage fundraising
:31:31. > :31:35.properly for these charities has damaged the whole sector. That is
:31:36. > :31:38.why these leading charities themselves are most keen to put
:31:39. > :31:42.these things right and learn lessons. If they learn lesson is, we
:31:43. > :31:46.are talking about the major charities namely, if they do, the
:31:47. > :31:50.statutory regulator will not be necessary. It will be an indictment
:31:51. > :31:58.of trustees if it becomes necessary. Do you welcome the conclusions of
:31:59. > :32:02.the committee? Is it the right way, to self regulate? We have to give
:32:03. > :32:06.the charity industry a chance to get their house in order because if they
:32:07. > :32:10.don't the biggest losers will be those who rely on the charities,
:32:11. > :32:17.whether it is vulnerable children, people suffering cancer. They will
:32:18. > :32:22.thing, I will not give money if this is the way they behave and it sounds
:32:23. > :32:28.like some charities are acting like big corporate, rather than meeting
:32:29. > :32:32.their purpose. They have to get their house in order. I accept what
:32:33. > :32:35.Bernard Jenkin has said, let's give them the opportunity to do that, but
:32:36. > :32:44.if they don't, government has to come in. Do you agree it is the last
:32:45. > :32:46.chance, and has its damaged their reputations in the minds of
:32:47. > :32:51.constituents? Absolutely it has, to have this on the front page of
:32:52. > :32:57.newspapers. It has to be the last chance saloon. They do an excellent
:32:58. > :33:02.job but aggressive fundraising has no place. People need to be able to
:33:03. > :33:07.opt out and know they can safely opt out and they need a clear code of
:33:08. > :33:13.conduct about vulnerable people who are more amenable to handing over
:33:14. > :33:17.money without knowing what it is about. It needs to be transparent
:33:18. > :33:22.and the charity commissioner has to get teeth and ensure charities who
:33:23. > :33:26.abuse the code of conduct, there are consequences. The trustees need to
:33:27. > :33:31.know what is going on in their charities. Why not go for a
:33:32. > :33:37.regulator? The charities are losing money, and if people do not have
:33:38. > :33:42.enough faith... ? It is about having good trustees who do their jobs
:33:43. > :33:48.properly and you cannot legislate for those things. Let's give them an
:33:49. > :33:52.opportunity. It might be a few charities are behaving in this way
:33:53. > :33:56.and giving everybody a bad name, so give them an opportunity, as the
:33:57. > :34:03.report says, but government and parliament should step in if that is
:34:04. > :34:06.the way we have to go. Let's give them an opportunity to get their
:34:07. > :34:12.house in order. How big an issue is it? Do you get a post about this? I
:34:13. > :34:17.get people coming to my surgery complaining about the aggressive
:34:18. > :34:22.tactics. I have a big elderly population and many give to charity
:34:23. > :34:27.and so it is a big issue. If I get cold calls from charities, I say the
:34:28. > :34:31.amount I give is diametrically linked to the number of cold calls I
:34:32. > :34:37.get so you better get off the phone quick. You can understand why
:34:38. > :34:40.charities market. They need money for the people they support, but
:34:41. > :34:43.they need to be responsible and put their values into practice.
:34:44. > :34:46.Let's have a look at what's in store for us this week.
:34:47. > :34:48.This afternoon, David Cameron meets his Irish
:34:49. > :34:49.counterpart, Enda Kenny, in Downing Street.
:34:50. > :34:53.And Open Europe will be hosting
:34:54. > :35:01.They'll be simulating EU reform and Brexit negotiations.
:35:02. > :35:05.the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn face each other across
:35:06. > :35:09.the despatch box for their regular dose of PMQs.
:35:10. > :35:13.And it's thought the French electricity generator EDF
:35:14. > :35:15.will make a final decision on whether to build
:35:16. > :35:18.two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point.
:35:19. > :35:23.a new book on Jeremy Corbyn hits the bookshelves,
:35:24. > :35:29.entitled Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup.
:35:30. > :35:31.And let's talk now to Chris Hope from the Daily Telegraph
:35:32. > :35:48.On Google, can George Osborne hail his deal as a success? He can try.
:35:49. > :35:51.At the weekend he desperately tried to say he was clearing up Labour
:35:52. > :35:57.loose change that had not been collected. It is small out of the
:35:58. > :36:01.billions Google are said to have made in this country. There will be
:36:02. > :36:06.questions in Parliament about this and Treasury questions and we are
:36:07. > :36:12.looking at HMRC with Google, called to give evidence and explain how
:36:13. > :36:18.they got to this ?130 million, the round number, to sort out a
:36:19. > :36:23.difficult PR exercise for Google. Whether George Osborne can claim
:36:24. > :36:29.credit, when HMRC is separate from policymakers, I doubt it. I sense
:36:30. > :36:34.cynicism! On George Osborne, teaming up with Bill Gates on a plan to wipe
:36:35. > :36:40.out malaria, is this staging his move towards number 10? I think with
:36:41. > :36:45.George Osborne everything has to be seen in the round and everything
:36:46. > :36:50.fits together. It is a different George Osborne we have seen in
:36:51. > :36:55.recent weeks, more confident, and a lot of Tory MPs are wondering if
:36:56. > :37:00.their differences, not just whether problems will come up, but how he
:37:01. > :37:04.rolls with the punches. What he is doing today is effectively slipping
:37:05. > :37:08.into a labour cloak, Labour beforehand have stood with Bill
:37:09. > :37:14.Gates, have announced billions of pounds for malaria, and now it is
:37:15. > :37:19.George Osborne doing it. The calculation I think he is making is
:37:20. > :37:27.problems will occur, but if he manages to overtake Labour's
:37:28. > :37:30.position, there are Tory MPs who will forgive a lot if he can
:37:31. > :37:33.guarantee them a electoral success in years to come. Carrying on on
:37:34. > :37:40.that theme, there is a timing issue. There is the EU referendum. Also
:37:41. > :37:45.what will happen with the economy and any fears of a downturn, at
:37:46. > :37:51.least being buffeted by global issues means that he needs to sort
:37:52. > :37:56.it out sooner rather than later. He cannot wait. We are looking at
:37:57. > :38:01.George Osborne, leader in 2019 and by that point the economy could be
:38:02. > :38:06.tanking. It is not looking great at the moment. George Osborne has been
:38:07. > :38:12.cutting, by then it will be nine, ten years, and the public will not
:38:13. > :38:17.forget. He will have to do this touchy-feely stuff, beating Bill
:38:18. > :38:23.Gates, to decontaminate the George Osborne brand. That is the challenge
:38:24. > :38:28.for his image makers. The Labour leader visited Calais and broadly
:38:29. > :38:33.called for Britain to take in more asylum seekers. To act more like
:38:34. > :38:43.Germany. How will that stand with the general population? He has
:38:44. > :38:46.phased quite a few Labour MPs suggesting this issue is out of
:38:47. > :38:50.touch with a population, especially swing voters, labour feels it did
:38:51. > :38:54.not connect with in the election and now wants to attempt to win over.
:38:55. > :39:04.The other problem Labour MPs are starting to ask more about is
:39:05. > :39:09.whether they understand what will happen with the leadership of the
:39:10. > :39:12.party. Only a week ago he appeared on the Andrew Marr programme talking
:39:13. > :39:17.about the nuclear deterrent and the new idea of boats with no nuclear
:39:18. > :39:22.warheads. Some Labour MPs are starting to feel as if they do not
:39:23. > :39:28.know where they stand. That said, from Jeremy Corbyn's point of view,
:39:29. > :39:33.his was a side of the party that felt it was badly treated by the
:39:34. > :39:38.Labour leadership for a long time. They feel they have done a lot to
:39:39. > :39:46.bring people of different views with them. And issues. Jeremy Corbyn will
:39:47. > :39:50.no doubt argue this visit has coincided with discussions about
:39:51. > :39:55.whether the UK should take more child refugees. Is he beginning to
:39:56. > :40:01.air of the sort of issues and put pressure on the government? Tim
:40:02. > :40:05.Farron from the Lib Dems started this off and Jeremy Corbyn is
:40:06. > :40:11.getting involved. Great images, walking through a refugee camp. It
:40:12. > :40:16.looks the right mood. An interesting quote today, Jeremy Corbyn saying we
:40:17. > :40:20.have been too defensive on immigration and speaking up why it
:40:21. > :40:27.is good for public services, a step change. And the last election, the
:40:28. > :40:32.mugs we tried to get the Labour candidates to pose with, they would
:40:33. > :40:36.not do it. Jeremy Corbyn is asking why we are embarrassed about
:40:37. > :40:40.immigration? I do not think it will do any good with the swing voters
:40:41. > :40:49.who do not want to hear that. Should asylum seekers waiting in France be
:40:50. > :40:55.welcome to bring? Save the children have said Britain should take 3000
:40:56. > :40:59.unaccompanied children from Europe into the UK. The longer we
:41:00. > :41:04.prevaricate and delay, the more children will fall into the hands of
:41:05. > :41:10.traffickers and will be abused. The priority should be to take those
:41:11. > :41:16.3000 unaccompanied children. But not more asylum seekers or refugees,
:41:17. > :41:21.migrants, who are already in Europe? It is important to distinguish
:41:22. > :41:25.between asylum seekers and migrants. We are talking about asylum seekers
:41:26. > :41:27.and one of the problems in the camps, the applications are not
:41:28. > :41:34.being processed and more pressure has to be put on the French to
:41:35. > :41:41.process asylum claims. If people have immediate family in the UK,
:41:42. > :41:48.they should be looked at passionately. -- compassionately. As
:41:49. > :41:52.is the case. At the moment you have these people in subhuman conditions,
:41:53. > :41:57.frankly, in camps in France, and they are not in the system. Either
:41:58. > :42:01.France has to process the claims or the United Nations needs to. That
:42:02. > :42:07.should not detract from the issue about taking these 3000. Jeremy
:42:08. > :42:11.Corbyn also said Britain should follow the example of Germany, that
:42:12. > :42:20.has let him 1 million migrants. Just last year. Should bring do the same?
:42:21. > :42:24.I think we have got to be careful about public reaction and about what
:42:25. > :42:29.we can absorb as a country. We should do our fair share. Is that
:42:30. > :42:35.fair share of the 20,000 the government has agreed to? It should
:42:36. > :42:40.go further than that with the 3000 children. Not what Jeremy Corbyn
:42:41. > :42:44.suggests, to take hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come
:42:45. > :42:49.from Syria and Iraq. The priority now should be the children not
:42:50. > :42:53.accompanied, who unless we take action are left to the traffickers
:42:54. > :43:03.and abusive people who are taking advantage of them. Should the Prime
:43:04. > :43:06.Minister say yes to the proposal by Save The Children charity to take
:43:07. > :43:14.the 3000 unaccompanied children? There is a humanitarian case for
:43:15. > :43:17.that. It is fraught with problems. You need to sort out how these
:43:18. > :43:26.children have got there, that they are genuinely alone. They are not
:43:27. > :43:29.going to fall in the hands of sex traffickers, people traffickers and
:43:30. > :43:33.other abuses. There is the issue we have a record number of children in
:43:34. > :43:40.care in the UK, the highest number in 35 years and a shortage of foster
:43:41. > :43:45.carers. We need to find places with specialist support here and there
:43:46. > :43:47.are practical considerations. From the humanitarian point of view we
:43:48. > :43:56.are probably going to have to do something. Do you think you should
:43:57. > :44:00.do something? We have a duty of care to children in appalling
:44:01. > :44:06.circumstances. The Prime Minister's policy is right to focus on refugees
:44:07. > :44:13.taking them from refugee camps around Syria. It is Germany who has
:44:14. > :44:17.unilaterally suspended European immigration laws and caused this
:44:18. > :44:23.crisis and now there is a backlash against this across Europe. We must
:44:24. > :44:27.not be drawn into that. On that, our European governments right to have
:44:28. > :44:32.put up their own temporary borders to deal with this crisis? You can
:44:33. > :44:36.understand why they are doing it and also this is why it must be
:44:37. > :44:41.resolved. Unless it is resolved about who takes what share, they all
:44:42. > :44:48.end up in Greece, Italy. Should Britain have taken part in a quota?
:44:49. > :44:52.No. On the children... Before the children came up there was a
:44:53. > :44:56.proposal for a quota system. If everybody had taken a quota of
:44:57. > :45:04.refugees and migrants, as you said, it would not have led to this
:45:05. > :45:07.situation. We need to work with European countries to ensure that
:45:08. > :45:11.people take their fair share. I do not think a quota system. On the
:45:12. > :45:14.issue of children, Tim says we need to ensure they do not fall into the
:45:15. > :45:19.hands of traffickers, the longer we delay on the decision the more
:45:20. > :45:23.likely they are to fall in the hands of traffickers. I recognise the
:45:24. > :45:28.point you make, we need to make sure their places. 3000 children is five
:45:29. > :45:35.per constituency which means in my city of Leeds, just under 40. And we
:45:36. > :45:40.have 10,000 foster carers less. When you talk about fair share, asked
:45:41. > :45:44.more than any other European nation are paying more than our fair share
:45:45. > :45:50.of aid to people displaced from Syria. ?1.2 billion, doing a great
:45:51. > :45:54.job over many years looking after people in difficult circumstances in
:45:55. > :45:59.places like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to avoid this exodus of
:46:00. > :46:06.people, risking their lives. It is not working! They are still coming.
:46:07. > :46:12.There would have been more and if Germany had not unilaterally opened
:46:13. > :46:15.its doors, suspended Schengen and the Dublin Convention, we would not
:46:16. > :46:20.have this crisis now. If they had spent the money on the ground
:46:21. > :46:21.looking after people closer to Syria, we would not be in this
:46:22. > :46:29.position now. Let's talk about the border control
:46:30. > :46:34.guards because the president of the Czech Republic has called for 5000
:46:35. > :46:39.soldiers to bolster the continent's border control. Would you support
:46:40. > :46:42.British soldiers going? If that is what is needed to protect the
:46:43. > :46:45.borders but also, there's a reason why these people are flowing in,
:46:46. > :46:49.because they are fleeing terror. I would say on this point about we are
:46:50. > :46:52.spending a lot of money, we are also spending a lot of money taking
:46:53. > :46:56.military action and we also need to deal with the root causes of the
:46:57. > :47:02.problem. So you would support a border... The problem of terror. We
:47:03. > :47:07.have to deal with the reasons why these people... But the crisis is
:47:08. > :47:11.now and that was one of the proposals so would you support
:47:12. > :47:14.Britain sending soldiers to a border patrol on the continent? I think if
:47:15. > :47:19.we are just keeping people out, we're not dealing with the problems
:47:20. > :47:22.we are facing. We have both got to provide the support for countries
:47:23. > :47:26.that really are on the front line, obviously in Syria but also Lebanon
:47:27. > :47:34.and in the camps, to make sure that the camps and the countries who are
:47:35. > :47:38.supporting refugees are living in humanitarian conditions so they are
:47:39. > :47:43.not forced to leave those countries. But also, when they get here, that
:47:44. > :47:48.they are not then exploited as many children are being at the moment.
:47:49. > :47:54.Rachel has said that there needs to be some kind of assistance. Would
:47:55. > :47:57.you support Rajesh soldiers or British personnel -- British
:47:58. > :48:00.soldiers or British personnel effectively defending the Schengen
:48:01. > :48:04.zone? What is it going to look like in practice quest to mock fortress
:48:05. > :48:07.Europe, will we have British soldiers on the beaches of Greece
:48:08. > :48:13.with guns drawn, saying, "You are not coming off those boats"? How,
:48:14. > :48:16.practically, can this happen? We and Europe should be doing a lot more,
:48:17. > :48:20.dealing with places like Turkey which is a safe country, to work out
:48:21. > :48:25.why those people are risking their lives to come across from Turkey to
:48:26. > :48:29.Greece in most cases in the first place. I'm not sure how placing a
:48:30. > :48:33.lot of soldiers on the beaches in Greece or Italy is going to solve
:48:34. > :48:38.the problem at all. Is Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister, we would be
:48:39. > :48:43.talking about much bigger numbers... It's irresponsible. He would like to
:48:44. > :48:47.do the same as Angela Merkel. Would that be responsible? I don't think
:48:48. > :48:52.we should have an open border policy. So he is wrong. I don't
:48:53. > :48:58.think we should have that whether it is asylum seekers or economic
:48:59. > :49:00.migrants. The reality is, there are pressures on public services in this
:49:01. > :49:05.country and there are pressures on wages and homes and all the west of
:49:06. > :49:09.it -- rest of it. You have do have clear rules on asylum and economic
:49:10. > :49:13.migrants. It was a pretty cheap of the city star by Jeremy Corbyn over
:49:14. > :49:17.the weekend, going to the campus. The questions he should be asking is
:49:18. > :49:21.why are their 6000 people camped around Calais? Why are the French
:49:22. > :49:24.authorities, under EU law, not processing them, seeing if they have
:49:25. > :49:27.a legitimate claim and dealing with them rather than allowing them to
:49:28. > :49:30.delude themselves into thinking there is some paved with gold
:49:31. > :49:34.situation in the UK when most of them will have no natural right to
:49:35. > :49:37.be here? Allowing them to live in squalid conditions under a full
:49:38. > :49:42.spring is quest Jamaat he was not asking those questions. It is about,
:49:43. > :49:46."Of course, we will take more", which is irresponsible and
:49:47. > :49:50.impractical will stop I agree that they need to be processed. But was
:49:51. > :49:55.it irresponsible of Jeremy Corbyn to go there, was it a stunt? I don't
:49:56. > :49:59.think it was a cheap publicity stunt. I think it is right that
:50:00. > :50:01.someone in a position of responsibility like Jeremy Corbyn
:50:02. > :50:06.can see for himself the situation because then you can take a more
:50:07. > :50:12.informed decision about it. But I do think it is important that we don't
:50:13. > :50:17.have an open border policy. That is not right for people who are already
:50:18. > :50:21.here. But there is something practical we could do. We need to
:50:22. > :50:25.build a cross-party consensus on this, but we Jeremy Corbyn, the
:50:26. > :50:32.Prime Minister and the backbenchers about these 3000 children. We can do
:50:33. > :50:35.something about it. But just saying of course we are going to take lots
:50:36. > :50:40.more is completely not right. That is why I have tried to focus on...
:50:41. > :50:44.And create more resentment in the UK. Is it because you are
:50:45. > :50:48.embarrassed by what Jeremy Corbyn has said? I think we are perhaps on
:50:49. > :50:51.the cost of doing something which is the right thing to do, taking
:50:52. > :50:54.unaccompanied children which is a moral responsibility and something
:50:55. > :51:01.we can build cross-party support on. Do you think that will happen? You
:51:02. > :51:04.said at the beginning... I think we are moving there because it is
:51:05. > :51:06.clearly... I'm not dodging it but it is clearly under discussion with the
:51:07. > :51:10.comments from Justine Greening yesterday. It would be odd if
:51:11. > :51:14.something did not happen now. Let's talk about the wristbands, asylum
:51:15. > :51:19.seekers in Cardiff are being made to wear wristbands in order to receive
:51:20. > :51:22.food. You think it's appalling? Yes. Why do these problems keep
:51:23. > :51:26.occurring? We have the red doors issue, again marking up those people
:51:27. > :51:31.who will receive food vouchers or help. Why is this happening?
:51:32. > :51:36.Common-sense needs to be used here. To use tactics that smack of the
:51:37. > :51:40.Nazis about putting badges on people is completely unacceptable. We have
:51:41. > :51:44.lots of technology, give them a smart card so they can get food
:51:45. > :51:48.vouchers. This is what happens when you stop thinking about people as
:51:49. > :51:52.humans. They are humans like the rest of us. To treat people in this
:51:53. > :51:55.way is despicable and has to stop. We will no doubt hear from the
:51:56. > :51:56.government what the decision will be.
:51:57. > :52:00.Labour has still not faced up to why it lost the last general election,
:52:01. > :52:01.according to one of their former pollsters.
:52:02. > :52:03.In an exclusive interview on yesterday's Sunday Politics,
:52:04. > :52:06.Deborah Mattinson said she was "very concerned" that lessons were not
:52:07. > :52:08.being learnt, and that the recent report by Margaret Beckett
:52:09. > :52:10.was apologetic, defensive, and didn't shine a light
:52:11. > :52:14.Here's a flavour of what she had to say our reporter,
:52:15. > :52:19.I think it was a whitewash and a massive missed opportunity.
:52:20. > :52:21.I feel very concerned that the lessons will
:52:22. > :52:24.I can't see how they will be learned.
:52:25. > :52:30.If this report does not address those
:52:31. > :52:32.issues, then I'm not sure when they would be addressed.
:52:33. > :52:37.No political party has a divine right to exist.
:52:38. > :52:41.Unless Labour really listens to the voters that it must persuade,
:52:42. > :52:43.it stands no chance of winning the next
:52:44. > :52:55.Deborah Mattinson, there. You have just come back after a few weeks...
:52:56. > :53:03.Well, after maternity leave. What is it like being back? All change!
:53:04. > :53:06.We've noticed that! Have you been welcomed back by Jeremy Corbyn? You
:53:07. > :53:10.came up to my constituency in Leeds over Christmas and New Year because
:53:11. > :53:15.we were affected by the floods and people were very pleased to see him.
:53:16. > :53:19.What about you? Have you been welcomed back? You were an
:53:20. > :53:22.important, senior figure. We've been working closely together on the
:53:23. > :53:26.issues of flood defences, insurance and things affecting my
:53:27. > :53:35.constituents. You are not in the Shadow Cabinet. Are you happy with
:53:36. > :53:37.the decision? Yes, I'm on the Treasury Select Committee and
:53:38. > :53:39.enjoying my work. Being in the Shadow Cabinet is a 20 47
:53:40. > :53:42.commitment. I did not vote for Jeremy Corbyn and I've got a family.
:53:43. > :53:45.You have to throw everything into it in the Shadow Cabinet and are not
:53:46. > :53:49.willing to make that sacrifice at that time in my life. Do you agree
:53:50. > :53:52.with your colleague Michael do that the party has been fighting its so
:53:53. > :53:56.intensely it has not been able to fight the Tories? That's right, it's
:53:57. > :54:00.true. We are focusing inwardly on issues which don't really resonate
:54:01. > :54:06.with the public about Trident, for example. We should be focusing on
:54:07. > :54:12.issues that really matter to people, like, for example, the fact that
:54:13. > :54:15.Britain is incredibly exposed to the financial turbulence going on around
:54:16. > :54:18.the world at the moment because the economy has not been properly
:54:19. > :54:23.rebalanced after the financial crisis. Who do you blame, if we are
:54:24. > :54:27.talking about -- for talking about the wrong issues, things that don't
:54:28. > :54:30.resonate with people? The leadership of the party have to take
:54:31. > :54:35.responsibility for that. They've opened up the issue of Trident, that
:54:36. > :54:41.was not an issue in the country. Because it is the party policy to
:54:42. > :54:43.renew it? Yes, jobs depend on it but most importantly, our national
:54:44. > :54:48.security depends on it. We should have learned those lessons in the
:54:49. > :54:53.1980s. But the Labour Party membership are keen to have a look
:54:54. > :54:57.at it again. At the Labour Party conference, we reaffirmed our
:54:58. > :54:59.commitment to renewing Trident. This is pressure which is coming from the
:55:00. > :55:04.leadership and not from the grassroots of the party. The longer
:55:05. > :55:11.we spend debating these internal issues about how we select the
:55:12. > :55:15.leader, Trident, the Falklands, the less time we are spending debating
:55:16. > :55:20.things that really matter to people around their living standards, about
:55:21. > :55:24.their schools and hospitals. Really, that is a dereliction of duty. Our
:55:25. > :55:28.duty as an opposition party should be holding the government to account
:55:29. > :55:32.and also setting out an alternative agenda. We have got good things to
:55:33. > :55:37.say on that. John McDonnell did a good job at the weekend. But they
:55:38. > :55:44.are being drowned out, you feel... Yes, by internal debate. Michael
:55:45. > :55:48.Dugher said that Jeremy Corbyn had to pass a series of tests in May,
:55:49. > :55:53.the elections, particularly in Scotland where Labour completely
:55:54. > :55:57.failed. Do you think that if he does not pass those tests, he could face
:55:58. > :56:01.a leadership challenge? I hope that we do pass those tests and I hope
:56:02. > :56:05.that we are winning back seat. But there's no evidence of it at the
:56:06. > :56:10.moment. Could Jeremy Corbyn face a leadership challenge if the party
:56:11. > :56:13.failed to make ground? Don't underestimate Jeremy Corbyn, he won
:56:14. > :56:17.support in the Labour Party and drew people into the Labour Party with
:56:18. > :56:21.what he said. He now needs to capture that, get those campaigners
:56:22. > :56:25.and supporters out on the doorstep, and take that fresh approach to
:56:26. > :56:28.politics which actually, people are crying out for, translated onto the
:56:29. > :56:32.doorstep and we will do that by focusing on issues which matter to
:56:33. > :56:36.people. If we do that, we can win back seat in May in Scotland and
:56:37. > :56:40.Wales and win back the London may rotate and seats around the country.
:56:41. > :56:43.Should some of your colleagues who would describe themselves as
:56:44. > :56:47.moderates stop criticising Jeremy Corbyn and let him get on with it? I
:56:48. > :56:55.think most people are letting Jeremy Corbyn get on with it. But they are
:56:56. > :56:58.criticising... To be fair, Michael Dugher wanted to serve in the Shadow
:56:59. > :57:06.Cabinet but he was sacked from his position. I think he and others have
:57:07. > :57:09.a right to say they think -- where they think it is going on. But
:57:10. > :57:12.people like Andy Burnham and Hilary Benn, who did not vote for Jeremy
:57:13. > :57:16.Corbyn are getting stuck in and taking the campaign to the Tories.
:57:17. > :57:19.We have to focus on the issues that matter to people. The government
:57:20. > :57:24.making big mistakes but we are not in a position to capitalise. Do you
:57:25. > :57:27.think you are not in this position to capitalise on those because the
:57:28. > :57:31.former pollster, Deborah Mattinson said the report into why the party
:57:32. > :57:36.lost the election was a whitewash? I don't think it was a whitewash. I
:57:37. > :57:43.think Margaret Beckett's report focused clearly on the issues I
:57:44. > :57:46.heard on the doorstep. I thought that Labour could and would win the
:57:47. > :57:49.general election so I got it wrong. But we were hearing the messages on
:57:50. > :57:51.the doorstep about labour not dealing with the deficit, letting
:57:52. > :57:54.too many immigrants in, that we were too soft on welfare and we did not
:57:55. > :57:57.have strong enough leadership. We heard the messages over and over
:57:58. > :58:02.again and that is what Margaret Beckett identified in the report.
:58:03. > :58:05.Deborah Mattinson said you was apologetic and offensive and she did
:58:06. > :58:09.not face up to the seriousness of the problem and has not made the
:58:10. > :58:13.research public that Deborah Mattinson did. Should she? I think
:58:14. > :58:17.Margaret Beckett's report was good and focused on the four things which
:58:18. > :58:20.I think are the reasons we lost the election. If we address and face the
:58:21. > :58:22.challenges, we can win again and we need to.
:58:23. > :58:25.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:26. > :58:28.The question was who is not on the Tatler list of who reallty
:58:29. > :58:32.Is it a) Ed Miliband, b) Nick Clegg, c) Boris Johnson,
:58:33. > :58:39.Nick Clegg? Ed Miliband. You are both wrong. Jeremy Corbyn was not on
:58:40. > :58:42.the list. That's all for today.
:58:43. > :58:48.Thanks to our guests. Particularly, these two, who were
:58:49. > :58:52.not on the Tatler list! I'll be here at noon
:58:53. > :58:55.tomorrow with Liz Kendall.