25/01/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Should big companies like Google pay more in tax?

Labour certainly thinks so, and so too does Boris Johnson.

Google's already said it will pay ?130 million in back tax,

The Government has confirmed it's considering taking in up to 3,000

unaccompanied child migrants who've made their way to Europe

The in campaign claims British business is better off

Surprise, surprise, those who want to leave say that's a load

And MPs warn charities to put their house in order

and bring to an end unscrupulous fund-raising tactics.

And former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,

George Osborne is coming under fire over

the internet giant's deal to pay ?130 million in back taxes.

A number of Labour MPs, including the Shadow Chancellor

John McDonnell, have argued it's not nearly enough

and Google have been let off the hook.

Here's the Chancellor discussing the deal over the weekend.

An important principle in our system is that people's tax affairs

are confidential between themselves and our independent HMRC.

But the fact that Google are paying taxes, I think,

These were taxes on profits made when there was

Now to have Labour politicians complaining about it is a bit rich.

Can George Osborne really claim this as a success? I think it is success,

progress, but only a start of progress. As George said, they paid

no tax at all in the past few years. The new profit diversion tax is

putting a message to companies that if they sell goods and services to

people in the UK and make a profit, they should be taxed on the profits

in the UK and Google will now pay up, and it needs to pay more and in

the future its full share. You admit it is not paying its full share.

Absolutely right. This is a good start, but only a start. There are

other companies who have to pay up what they should have been paying

and make sure that from now on they are paying their full share of tax

in the UK. It is better than paying no tax in terms of being taxed on

profits, which happened under Labour. It does not send a good

signal that you can get away with paying 2% of tax on sales. 2013,

Google had sales around ?4 billion in the UK and only paying 130

million over ten years. Why did they not pay under Labour? This review

was conducted. The conclusion ?130 million is OK, it is not good

enough. A lot of people are struggling at the end of January to

do their tax return and are not able to chat with HMRC to say, maybe I

will pay ?1000 this year. They have to pay what is their fair share. Was

it a mistake Labour did not pressure companies like Google at the time?

Is it rich for John MacDonald to start squealing about not enough

pressure being put on when none was put on under Labour? -- John

McDonnell. Not enough tax was paid in that period but for George

Osborne to say it is a success, a good start, it is a start but not a

good start. It does not send a good signal to companies in those

discussions that they can get away with a tax bill of this size. If

these are what is called a sweetheart deal, in other words they

make a deal and pay some tax earned on profits, but not the full out, it

looks as if it has been signed and sealed with HMRC? I do not like cosy

deals and there needs to be greater transparency, all companies are

subject to it. There was a grey area over many years using on the face of

its legal devices not to pay tax and stop allowed by successive

governments. It is the chance's fault and responsibility. It is the

government instructing HMRC as to how tough they should be. We need to

ensure they are treated in the same way as other taxpayers in this

country and a measure of success will be in future years that Google

and the rest pay more tax. How much should they be paying? 20%. They

should be paying the full corporation tax. It is not good

enough to say we employ a lot of people and pay a lot of national

Insurance, so do others. It is to do with complex arrangements they have

put in place to minimise tax. It is diverted profits are unfairly.

Starbucks have changed headquarters from benevolence to the UK and we

need to see more of that going on. Rachel, would you call for action

against these companies in terms of a boycott? There was a

people'sprotest against Starbucks. It is up to people to decide. I am

not going to advocate picking on one company or another, it is up to

people to decide. With the living wage, eight campaign I have

advocated, one of the great things is that you get a mark to say, I am

a living wage employer. We can decide as consumers if we want to

spend money in a shop that pays the living wage or not and there should

be something like that on whether you pay your fair share of tax so we

can make informed decisions as consumers. We pay tax on what we

earn which pays for schools, hospitals, roads and trains. Google

benefit from those things and do not pay in. Boris Johnson has said the

same. Consumers have a part to play. There was a BBC programme about a

village in Wales. Declaring itself a fair tax village. Working out it

could avoid tax by underhand means but does not want to do it.

Companies, as part of their marketing promotion, should show

they are paying a fair share of tax in the UK and do it legitimately and

therefore you can buy things safely from it. They have a responsibility

to ensure we have a tax code that means people have to pay their fair

share will stop you cannot blame the companies, the government has to get

a grip and make sure everybody pays tax, especially the biggest company.

130 million is not a grip. It is a drop in the ocean.

Tatler Magazine has published the Tatler List -

a run down of 623 people who they claim really matter.

However, there also appears to be an even more glaring omission.

So our question for today is, according to Tatler,

At the end of the show, Tim and Rachel, who I'm afraid

are also not on the list, will give us the correct answer.

We don't even have the date of the referendum on Britain's

membership of the EU yet, but already there are squabbles

between the campaigns around figures.

The latest disputed statistic is around whether British firms

Stuart Rose, chairman of Britain Stronger in Europe,

says the EU is worth an average of ?670,000 in extra trade to every

UK business exporting or importing within the bloc.

He used data published by the Centre for European Reform think tank,

which found UK goods trade with the EU was 55% higher

However, one campaign group on the other side -

Vote Leave - said this was nonsense and in fact,

the single market has failed to have a significant impact

They point to research by think tank Civitas,

who found membership of the EU has had "no discernable benefit" for UK

exports, proved "not far short of a disaster" for Britain.

There are other disputed figures, too.

Britain Stronger in Europe say Britain's EU membership costs a net

But Vote Leave put the cost at ?350 million a week by using

I might have left the million off the last one.

And Britain Stronger in Europe say 13% of laws are made in Brussels,

whereas Vote Leave put this figure much higher, between 65-75%.

Let's talk now to Will Straw, who's the executive director

And to Robert Oxley, who's head of media for Vote Leave.

Welcome. Stuart Rose says membership is worth an average of 670,000 to

British businesses, how do you calculate that? Based on an

independent study that the centre has done. They looked at the impact

of being part of the European Union against not being in the EU and of

what it has meant for trade performance which they think has

given a 55% boost and if you take the number, divided by the number of

trading businesses in UK. This is looking at goods,. Services, and you

get an average figure of 670,000 per business. It will be bigger for some

and smaller further for others. It is theoretical. It is based on real

numbers, taking an estimate. You are right, looking at the impact of

being in the EU and it is the case that the other side will put

something else across. The overwhelming majority of businesses,

big and small, entrepreneurs and more established businesses, are

saying it is in Britain's interests to be in the EU, certainly of the

trade, low prices and jobs it creates and investment. Let's

broaden the argument and look at what our businesses and others

saying about the benefits of being in the EU. Not all businesses say

that but if you look at the figures in terms of it being a model, that

is how you come up with the calculations, it is powerful,

?670,000 to British business, you would not match that if these UK

came out? I do wonder what it is about is the European centre for

reform. You do not think it is an independent model? You can pick a

number that focuses on trade and it laws exports and services which make

up a large part of the economy. If you look at the overall British

exports, British exports to the EU, about 45%, it is declining, as is

the share of the world GDP. There are numbers that show the EU is a

declining relevance to the British market. You do not dispute the

numbers themselves, you say there are other things you can look at? It

is a case of which facts you cherry pick. If you look at a truly

independent report today, is says the EU has been dismal for export

growth for the UK. If you take the safe option, a free-trade deal, that

the European centre for reform in this report, which is two years old,

they say a free-trade deal would happen. We will get onto the

free-trade deals. If you say it would be a disaster if Britain left

the EU, it is true to say that bilateral deals could be set up,

have been set up by other countries, and there has been no reason for the

EU not to set up bilateral treaties that would equal the sort of money

we currently make. This is where the debate needs to go, what is it that

those wanting to leave want Britain's trading relationship to

be? Like Norway, Switzerland, that have access to the single market but

accept free movement. Let's stick to trade. If they did on the basis of

the countries you just mentioned, do you agree they would be able to...

British business would benefit to the tune of the figures you are

talking about. We have no idea what trade deals would be negotiated. The

United States trade representative said if we left the EU there would

not be a trade relationship between the UK and US, they are only dealing

with countries such as the EU. Other countries are coming together to act

as a bloc and get a better deal for consumers. What evidence they have

that countries in the EU like Germany and France would give us a

deal that is as good as it is at the moment? Why wouldn't they? How will

you persuade... Can I come back? I will when Robert has come in. I am

sure there is every chance of setting up a bilateral arrangement

but you cannot guarantee it and do not know how long it will take.

In the world are death and taxes but if you look at the Independent

reports, not just the Eurosceptics, they are clear that every incentive

is there, for a free-trade deal. We can save the ?350 million... It's a

risk. It's not, it is a decision we have to take if we vote to leave.

The message from the Britain stronger in Europe campaign is that

no better relationship as possible. We are saying we have this

relationship with the EU which cost us ?350 million per week, enough for

a new hospital. It limits democracy because it takes decisions away from

Westminster and means politicians are less accountable. It hurts

people in their pockets in terms of Mauritz pensive goods. It takes the

decisions away. I think actually, we could leave and do the free-trade

deals in the same way that Chile and Peru have done them but we could

also do them outside of the EU with those global, emerging markets which

we are limited from. I think we can go for a bit more than July and

Peru. We can go for the best of both welcome in the EU, getting the best

deal from the single market but also new deals with countries like India

and America. We will get those on much better terms as a group of 500

million consumers than we would as 65 million consumers. The cost of EU

membership, fascinating as it is, before you continue, the difficulty

is getting objective facts. Perhaps it is impossible. In the end, won't

it just come down to people's hearts in this particular issue? I think

that is a real problem. Listening to these two exchange facts, and

another fact I heard this morning is that when the EU does trade deals

with other countries, there's bigger growth by countries like Switzerland

and Norway with those countries rather than with the EU. We can

interpret statistics in any way. But the problem is, Mr and Mrs Smith in

one Acacia Ave in Worthing are going to be confused by this and at the

end of the day, we need to have a proper, frank debate based on fact

and not scare stories about what might happen. They are... Neither of

these gentlemen, I put to you, are lying. It is about how you view...

Truths. The economics. Are they telling the truth when it comes to

statistics? Part of the problem is you don't know what the

counterfactual is. We don't know what things would be like if we were

outside the European Union. But then I think people would be taking a

huge risk if we did come out. The Prime Minister, the Vote Leave

groups don't know what the world would be like if we were outside. If

I was a business or I worked for a business, I would be very concerned

about leaving and what it would mean for my job if I traded with Europe

but not just with Europe, as well if you trade with the US, are we going

to get those trade relationships we have before? Also, if we are going

to have access to free markets, that we have at the moment, the reality

is we are going to have to pay into the system so that the extra

hospital a week won't just be there. Finally, let me say that we will

also still be subject to the free movement rules that Norway and

Switzerland and others are. If we were to go down the same route as

Norway and Switzerland... Without knowing that, it's a massive risk.

Do you feel as uncertain over the prospect, if it were to happen? No,

I can see there is a future for the UK outside of the EU. I'm not scared

about that. I've not made my mind up because I'm waiting for what the

deal is going to be. Because it is though substantive? The way I look

at it and where I see a problem with this argument, I was at an EU

negotiation this morning, is that it's not just about what is good for

the UK and Europe. It has to be about what is good for the whole of

the EU. The point that Robert makes is right, the share of the GDP is

60% of what it was in 1990. There are risks, not just in coming out

but in staying in an increasingly uncompetitive, shrinking... This is

post-Euro crisis and of course the current migration crisis and you can

why people would have concerns. Can I ask you about something

specifically, the number of laws that are made in Brussels. You put

the figure at 13%. Where do you get the figure? The House of Commons

library. You could not get much more independent. It is only part of the

rule book. They are talking about a thing called directives. Those are

the ones where the House of Commons looks at the rules which come out of

the EU that the UK has to put through Parliament. There's a lot of

EU rules, many more than the directives, which go straight into

law. If you look at the wider EU rule book, the things which don't go

through Parliament, don't get scrutinised or a chance to discuss

how we're to implement... That is 65%. How much of an impact do they

have on the UK? A lot of EU wide regulations won't necessarily have

any major impact on the UK and they would have been the sort of thing

the UK would have passed anyway. When you pass the regulation like

that, they do a cost impact assessment. It puts it close to ?70

billion, excluding the kind of regulations like on green issues and

working time directive is which I know you are going to talk about.

Are you being misleading? The problem with this ultimate is that

it only looks at one side of the equation, the cost. But what the

government will do in bring in any regulation is look at the cost

benefit analysis, the benefits of the regulations. Regardless of the

figure, decide would love to get rid of the regulations that protect

workers, that give us paid holidays, maternity and paternity leave. One

person's cost is another's benefit. We need to be cattle entering the

figures around and look at the entire picture. -- need to be

careful. That is the question, you talk about regulations and you never

say what they are and they could be regulations that a lot of people

value. I said specifically I was excluding the ones on green and

social employment. If we are going to talk about where these decisions

should be made, in Brussels or Westminster, we will probably

disagree outside of the EU debate about how certain rules are done in

this country but the point is, we don't get to vote for the people who

make those decisions. Thank you for joining us. We could go on forever!

Now to the timing of the EU referendum.

Yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show, Scotland's First Minister Nicola

Two reasons why I would not be in favour of a June referendum.

One, you might interpret it as being a bit selfish

but the Scottish election is in May, and indeed the Welsh,

Northern Irish and London elections are in May.

To have a referendum campaign starting in parallel would be

disrespectful to those important elections.

You still have seven weeks after that.

But given the statutory campaign period for the UK

referendum, you would undoubtedly start to confuse the issues.

The second reason is that I think it would be better for David Cameron

to leave more time between, if he does

get a deal at the February European Council, to leave more time

between the deal and the point of decision.

One of the big problems I see for the In campaign at the moment

is that as far as David Cameron is concerned,

it is very much focused on these narrow issues of renegotiation.

In actual fact, if the In campaign is going to prevail,

it is going to have to become a positive in principle

campaign about why it is better for the UK to stay within

Nicola Sturgeon, there. She has got a point, hasn't she, Tim, over the

timing? She has a point and I agree that we don't want the EU referendum

mixed up with Scottish, London and Welsh elections. But I agree with

her for very different reasons. I want to have a referendum as late as

possible. The Prime Minister has offered a referendum by the end of

2017. This is a once in a generation opportunity to try to get some kind

of closure over what has been a very unhappy relationship over many years

between Europe and the British people. I want to make sure that

there are not, the day after the referendum result if it is a narrow

majority to stay in, we have got a lot of people saying, "You had

another 18 months, you could have negotiated for even better deal, why

didn't you go to the wire?" I don't want people to have the use of

crying foul that it was not a genuine vote. It has to be a genuine

vote and he has to go to the 11th hour to get the best deal for the UK

and the future of Europe. Do you think he is keen to have it in June,

to rush it, as you would see it, because it is his best chance of

winning to stay in on his so-called re-negotiated settlement? There's

lots of factors and clearly the Prime Minister wants a Yes vote. But

he think that is his best chance? He thinks he can get some low hanging

fruit and I think he will get things which will surprise people as well,

now and let's have the vote to dispel the uncertainty he's on --

afraid. But I don't think it will cut the mustard if we get a narrow

vote in favour and the argument will go on, not just within the

Conservative Party but the country as I thought which is not good for

the stability of Europe for years coming forward. Is there a

legitimacy question if he does go as early as June? He says he could have

a settlement and then wants to put that to the people as quickly as

possible. If there's a settlement, I think we have the vote. In June?

Yes, not for political reasons but because I think it's the right thing

to do. If you are a business and you are deciding whether to invest in

Leeds or Madrid, then we want to resolve that question of whether we

are in the European Union or not. Uncertainty is bad for business and

bad for the people who work for business. I think, let's resolve the

uncertainty. We have been going on about a referendum for years now.

Everyone knows it is coming. Let's get the deal. Let's hope it is as

good as possible for Britain. And then let's get on and make the

decision because that is in the best interests of the country, whatever

the decision. Does it put your campaign at a disadvantage if it is

in June? Absolutely not, we prepared for the earliest date expected and

June is likely, for the reason that the Prime Minister does not want

much good of his trivial renegotiation. You don't know what

it is yet! They have made their mind up and the rest of us are waiting to

see. You have said you will stay in no matter what. And you want to

leave. We see the maximum of what it will achieve and we saw that in the

Donald Tusk letter. We will be ready for June. The grassroots campaigning

we have got, we had 100 Fifty St stalls in January and they will

deliver the leaflets and the In campaign will have to rely on

Goldman Sachs to paper their leaflets. They're probably not bad

people to pay for it. Are the hedge funds supporting them? It's a race

to the bottom if we criticise each other's donors. People have an

interest in it. Goldman Sachs have given us money because they have

done the economic analysis. I appreciate that. They have shown the

economic impact which is at risk from the referendum that their

research. We will have directions and I'm sure you will as well from a

wide range of people so let's not get silly. Whichever side of the

argument it seems you actually stand, it is important, which may

then make your point about waiting so long difficult for some bigger

businesses. Waiting another 18 months to get an absolutely

definitive, that was the best possible deal we could do, take it

or leave it, I think is worth waiting for. Whichever way they go,

they would like the uncertainty to be resolved. Let me ask another

question because we are not entirely certain in terms of Parliamentary

process whether there would be an option for MPs, if they did not like

the idea of a June referendum because of the reasons Nicola

Sturgeon said all because of the reasons you have said, is there any

way Parliament could stop it? I presume we could. There is. It sets

out a timetable but presumably if the majority of MPs did not like how

it was panning out we could force a vote to overturn the legislation.

But the likelihood of there being a majority of unlikely because Labour

would not vote against timings for the reasons Nicola Sturgeon said. I

don't know what Labour's position would be but my position is, once

the Prime Minister has got the renegotiation, whatever it brings,

we should get on and take the decision to the people. At the end

of the day, the people will decide. We should give them the chance.

Thank you for joining us. I'm sure we will see you gentlemen again.

Now, a committee of MPs has warned charities that their fund-raising

activities could be controlled by law -

unless a new voluntary regulator succeeds in cleaning up the sector.

The regulator is being set up following last summer's scandals,

when unscrupulous fund-raisers were accused of targeting

Let's talk now to the chairman of the Public Administration

Committee, Bernard Jenkin, who's in Central Lobby.

Welcome back to the daily politics. Why isn't there going to be a state

regulator? Why are you leaving the second -- sector to regular it

itself? That is what the outcome of the Everington Review recommended

and that is the recommendation the government has accepted. Really, it

will be a terrible indictment of charity trustees themselves if they

really can't run their charities without a state regulator for

fundraising. Why should they be given another chance? We've had all

these dreadful stories of the old and vulnerable being targeted and

particularly the case of Olive Cooke, who ended up killing herself.

Should they have another chance? Be careful because it is not

necessarily that the fundraising activities charities led to that

suicide. But the important issue here is that you can't regulate

charities to have good trustees by state regulation. We have all this

financial regulation and we still finished up with badly run banks.

Regulation does not of itself make people behave better. What we need

to communicate is what people's responsibilities as charities, and

charity trusts, actually are, that they understand the regulations and

in this case, the case of the charities that we interviewed, it is

quite clear that trustees did not know what was going on. That is not

an excuse. They have learned some lessons and we must make sure that

the lessons are implemented across all charities, particularly large

ones that have very high value fundraising efforts. What about the

bad practices? What specifically have you been looking at? What do

you want to see change? There was a complete lack of data control. We

have the Information Commissioner in front of six training how unhappy he

was, and maybe he needs new powers and we recommend that we look at

that. We want the government to look at it. But the Information

Commissioner as a statutory regulator should be more on the

ball, tackling the buying and selling of data without people's

consent, the abuse of the Telephone preference service, when people

think they have opted out of cold calling, and they find they are

still subject to it. What we found with charities, not so much the

charities but the contractors that they had employed, actually, there

was a very cavalier attitude to the rules, even the statically rules.

These were rules to be got around as best they could because they had

financial targets to try to raise as much money as possible. So you ended

up with a training lesson in one of these companies about how to get

money out of a 90-year-old -- 98 he rolled woman, even if she was saying

she was confused and vulnerable. -- 98-year-old woman. It is outrageous

and the charity's trustees were appalled as soon as they found out.

But they should have known what was being done in their name.

You say you have no doubt most charities do not engage in this

conduct. Do you think people might now be less willing to give money to

them? That is what has happened with more people less inclined to give

money over the telephone. The effect of failing to manage fundraising

properly for these charities has damaged the whole sector. That is

why these leading charities themselves are most keen to put

these things right and learn lessons. If they learn lesson is, we

are talking about the major charities namely, if they do, the

statutory regulator will not be necessary. It will be an indictment

of trustees if it becomes necessary. Do you welcome the conclusions of

the committee? Is it the right way, to self regulate? We have to give

the charity industry a chance to get their house in order because if they

don't the biggest losers will be those who rely on the charities,

whether it is vulnerable children, people suffering cancer. They will

thing, I will not give money if this is the way they behave and it sounds

like some charities are acting like big corporate, rather than meeting

their purpose. They have to get their house in order. I accept what

Bernard Jenkin has said, let's give them the opportunity to do that, but

if they don't, government has to come in. Do you agree it is the last

chance, and has its damaged their reputations in the minds of

constituents? Absolutely it has, to have this on the front page of

newspapers. It has to be the last chance saloon. They do an excellent

job but aggressive fundraising has no place. People need to be able to

opt out and know they can safely opt out and they need a clear code of

conduct about vulnerable people who are more amenable to handing over

money without knowing what it is about. It needs to be transparent

and the charity commissioner has to get teeth and ensure charities who

abuse the code of conduct, there are consequences. The trustees need to

know what is going on in their charities. Why not go for a

regulator? The charities are losing money, and if people do not have

enough faith... ? It is about having good trustees who do their jobs

properly and you cannot legislate for those things. Let's give them an

opportunity. It might be a few charities are behaving in this way

and giving everybody a bad name, so give them an opportunity, as the

report says, but government and parliament should step in if that is

the way we have to go. Let's give them an opportunity to get their

house in order. How big an issue is it? Do you get a post about this? I

get people coming to my surgery complaining about the aggressive

tactics. I have a big elderly population and many give to charity

and so it is a big issue. If I get cold calls from charities, I say the

amount I give is diametrically linked to the number of cold calls I

get so you better get off the phone quick. You can understand why

charities market. They need money for the people they support, but

they need to be responsible and put their values into practice.

Let's have a look at what's in store for us this week.

This afternoon, David Cameron meets his Irish

counterpart, Enda Kenny, in Downing Street.

And Open Europe will be hosting

They'll be simulating EU reform and Brexit negotiations.

the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn face each other across

the despatch box for their regular dose of PMQs.

And it's thought the French electricity generator EDF

will make a final decision on whether to build

two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point.

a new book on Jeremy Corbyn hits the bookshelves,

entitled Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup.

And let's talk now to Chris Hope from the Daily Telegraph

On Google, can George Osborne hail his deal as a success? He can try.

At the weekend he desperately tried to say he was clearing up Labour

loose change that had not been collected. It is small out of the

billions Google are said to have made in this country. There will be

questions in Parliament about this and Treasury questions and we are

looking at HMRC with Google, called to give evidence and explain how

they got to this ?130 million, the round number, to sort out a

difficult PR exercise for Google. Whether George Osborne can claim

credit, when HMRC is separate from policymakers, I doubt it. I sense

cynicism! On George Osborne, teaming up with Bill Gates on a plan to wipe

out malaria, is this staging his move towards number 10? I think with

George Osborne everything has to be seen in the round and everything

fits together. It is a different George Osborne we have seen in

recent weeks, more confident, and a lot of Tory MPs are wondering if

their differences, not just whether problems will come up, but how he

rolls with the punches. What he is doing today is effectively slipping

into a labour cloak, Labour beforehand have stood with Bill

Gates, have announced billions of pounds for malaria, and now it is

George Osborne doing it. The calculation I think he is making is

problems will occur, but if he manages to overtake Labour's

position, there are Tory MPs who will forgive a lot if he can

guarantee them a electoral success in years to come. Carrying on on

that theme, there is a timing issue. There is the EU referendum. Also

what will happen with the economy and any fears of a downturn, at

least being buffeted by global issues means that he needs to sort

it out sooner rather than later. He cannot wait. We are looking at

George Osborne, leader in 2019 and by that point the economy could be

tanking. It is not looking great at the moment. George Osborne has been

cutting, by then it will be nine, ten years, and the public will not

forget. He will have to do this touchy-feely stuff, beating Bill

Gates, to decontaminate the George Osborne brand. That is the challenge

for his image makers. The Labour leader visited Calais and broadly

called for Britain to take in more asylum seekers. To act more like

Germany. How will that stand with the general population? He has

phased quite a few Labour MPs suggesting this issue is out of

touch with a population, especially swing voters, labour feels it did

not connect with in the election and now wants to attempt to win over.

The other problem Labour MPs are starting to ask more about is

whether they understand what will happen with the leadership of the

party. Only a week ago he appeared on the Andrew Marr programme talking

about the nuclear deterrent and the new idea of boats with no nuclear

warheads. Some Labour MPs are starting to feel as if they do not

know where they stand. That said, from Jeremy Corbyn's point of view,

his was a side of the party that felt it was badly treated by the

Labour leadership for a long time. They feel they have done a lot to

bring people of different views with them. And issues. Jeremy Corbyn will

no doubt argue this visit has coincided with discussions about

whether the UK should take more child refugees. Is he beginning to

air of the sort of issues and put pressure on the government? Tim

Farron from the Lib Dems started this off and Jeremy Corbyn is

getting involved. Great images, walking through a refugee camp. It

looks the right mood. An interesting quote today, Jeremy Corbyn saying we

have been too defensive on immigration and speaking up why it

is good for public services, a step change. And the last election, the

mugs we tried to get the Labour candidates to pose with, they would

not do it. Jeremy Corbyn is asking why we are embarrassed about

immigration? I do not think it will do any good with the swing voters

who do not want to hear that. Should asylum seekers waiting in France be

welcome to bring? Save the children have said Britain should take 3000

unaccompanied children from Europe into the UK. The longer we

prevaricate and delay, the more children will fall into the hands of

traffickers and will be abused. The priority should be to take those

3000 unaccompanied children. But not more asylum seekers or refugees,

migrants, who are already in Europe? It is important to distinguish

between asylum seekers and migrants. We are talking about asylum seekers

and one of the problems in the camps, the applications are not

being processed and more pressure has to be put on the French to

process asylum claims. If people have immediate family in the UK,

they should be looked at passionately. -- compassionately. As

is the case. At the moment you have these people in subhuman conditions,

frankly, in camps in France, and they are not in the system. Either

France has to process the claims or the United Nations needs to. That

should not detract from the issue about taking these 3000. Jeremy

Corbyn also said Britain should follow the example of Germany, that

has let him 1 million migrants. Just last year. Should bring do the same?

I think we have got to be careful about public reaction and about what

we can absorb as a country. We should do our fair share. Is that

fair share of the 20,000 the government has agreed to? It should

go further than that with the 3000 children. Not what Jeremy Corbyn

suggests, to take hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come

from Syria and Iraq. The priority now should be the children not

accompanied, who unless we take action are left to the traffickers

and abusive people who are taking advantage of them. Should the Prime

Minister say yes to the proposal by Save The Children charity to take

the 3000 unaccompanied children? There is a humanitarian case for

that. It is fraught with problems. You need to sort out how these

children have got there, that they are genuinely alone. They are not

going to fall in the hands of sex traffickers, people traffickers and

other abuses. There is the issue we have a record number of children in

care in the UK, the highest number in 35 years and a shortage of foster

carers. We need to find places with specialist support here and there

are practical considerations. From the humanitarian point of view we

are probably going to have to do something. Do you think you should

do something? We have a duty of care to children in appalling

circumstances. The Prime Minister's policy is right to focus on refugees

taking them from refugee camps around Syria. It is Germany who has

unilaterally suspended European immigration laws and caused this

crisis and now there is a backlash against this across Europe. We must

not be drawn into that. On that, our European governments right to have

put up their own temporary borders to deal with this crisis? You can

understand why they are doing it and also this is why it must be

resolved. Unless it is resolved about who takes what share, they all

end up in Greece, Italy. Should Britain have taken part in a quota?

No. On the children... Before the children came up there was a

proposal for a quota system. If everybody had taken a quota of

refugees and migrants, as you said, it would not have led to this

situation. We need to work with European countries to ensure that

people take their fair share. I do not think a quota system. On the

issue of children, Tim says we need to ensure they do not fall into the

hands of traffickers, the longer we delay on the decision the more

likely they are to fall in the hands of traffickers. I recognise the

point you make, we need to make sure their places. 3000 children is five

per constituency which means in my city of Leeds, just under 40. And we

have 10,000 foster carers less. When you talk about fair share, asked

more than any other European nation are paying more than our fair share

of aid to people displaced from Syria. ?1.2 billion, doing a great

job over many years looking after people in difficult circumstances in

places like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to avoid this exodus of

people, risking their lives. It is not working! They are still coming.

There would have been more and if Germany had not unilaterally opened

its doors, suspended Schengen and the Dublin Convention, we would not

have this crisis now. If they had spent the money on the ground

looking after people closer to Syria, we would not be in this

position now. Let's talk about the border control

guards because the president of the Czech Republic has called for 5000

soldiers to bolster the continent's border control. Would you support

British soldiers going? If that is what is needed to protect the

borders but also, there's a reason why these people are flowing in,

because they are fleeing terror. I would say on this point about we are

spending a lot of money, we are also spending a lot of money taking

military action and we also need to deal with the root causes of the

problem. So you would support a border... The problem of terror. We

have to deal with the reasons why these people... But the crisis is

now and that was one of the proposals so would you support

Britain sending soldiers to a border patrol on the continent? I think if

we are just keeping people out, we're not dealing with the problems

we are facing. We have both got to provide the support for countries

that really are on the front line, obviously in Syria but also Lebanon

and in the camps, to make sure that the camps and the countries who are

supporting refugees are living in humanitarian conditions so they are

not forced to leave those countries. But also, when they get here, that

they are not then exploited as many children are being at the moment.

Rachel has said that there needs to be some kind of assistance. Would

you support Rajesh soldiers or British personnel -- British

soldiers or British personnel effectively defending the Schengen

zone? What is it going to look like in practice quest to mock fortress

Europe, will we have British soldiers on the beaches of Greece

with guns drawn, saying, "You are not coming off those boats"? How,

practically, can this happen? We and Europe should be doing a lot more,

dealing with places like Turkey which is a safe country, to work out

why those people are risking their lives to come across from Turkey to

Greece in most cases in the first place. I'm not sure how placing a

lot of soldiers on the beaches in Greece or Italy is going to solve

the problem at all. Is Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister, we would be

talking about much bigger numbers... It's irresponsible. He would like to

do the same as Angela Merkel. Would that be responsible? I don't think

we should have an open border policy. So he is wrong. I don't

think we should have that whether it is asylum seekers or economic

migrants. The reality is, there are pressures on public services in this

country and there are pressures on wages and homes and all the west of

it -- rest of it. You have do have clear rules on asylum and economic

migrants. It was a pretty cheap of the city star by Jeremy Corbyn over

the weekend, going to the campus. The questions he should be asking is

why are their 6000 people camped around Calais? Why are the French

authorities, under EU law, not processing them, seeing if they have

a legitimate claim and dealing with them rather than allowing them to

delude themselves into thinking there is some paved with gold

situation in the UK when most of them will have no natural right to

be here? Allowing them to live in squalid conditions under a full

spring is quest Jamaat he was not asking those questions. It is about,

"Of course, we will take more", which is irresponsible and

impractical will stop I agree that they need to be processed. But was

it irresponsible of Jeremy Corbyn to go there, was it a stunt? I don't

think it was a cheap publicity stunt. I think it is right that

someone in a position of responsibility like Jeremy Corbyn

can see for himself the situation because then you can take a more

informed decision about it. But I do think it is important that we don't

have an open border policy. That is not right for people who are already

here. But there is something practical we could do. We need to

build a cross-party consensus on this, but we Jeremy Corbyn, the

Prime Minister and the backbenchers about these 3000 children. We can do

something about it. But just saying of course we are going to take lots

more is completely not right. That is why I have tried to focus on...

And create more resentment in the UK. Is it because you are

embarrassed by what Jeremy Corbyn has said? I think we are perhaps on

the cost of doing something which is the right thing to do, taking

unaccompanied children which is a moral responsibility and something

we can build cross-party support on. Do you think that will happen? You

said at the beginning... I think we are moving there because it is

clearly... I'm not dodging it but it is clearly under discussion with the

comments from Justine Greening yesterday. It would be odd if

something did not happen now. Let's talk about the wristbands, asylum

seekers in Cardiff are being made to wear wristbands in order to receive

food. You think it's appalling? Yes. Why do these problems keep

occurring? We have the red doors issue, again marking up those people

who will receive food vouchers or help. Why is this happening?

Common-sense needs to be used here. To use tactics that smack of the

Nazis about putting badges on people is completely unacceptable. We have

lots of technology, give them a smart card so they can get food

vouchers. This is what happens when you stop thinking about people as

humans. They are humans like the rest of us. To treat people in this

way is despicable and has to stop. We will no doubt hear from the

government what the decision will be.

Labour has still not faced up to why it lost the last general election,

according to one of their former pollsters.

In an exclusive interview on yesterday's Sunday Politics,

Deborah Mattinson said she was "very concerned" that lessons were not

being learnt, and that the recent report by Margaret Beckett

was apologetic, defensive, and didn't shine a light

Here's a flavour of what she had to say our reporter,

I think it was a whitewash and a massive missed opportunity.

I feel very concerned that the lessons will

I can't see how they will be learned.

If this report does not address those

issues, then I'm not sure when they would be addressed.

No political party has a divine right to exist.

Unless Labour really listens to the voters that it must persuade,

it stands no chance of winning the next

Deborah Mattinson, there. You have just come back after a few weeks...

Well, after maternity leave. What is it like being back? All change!

We've noticed that! Have you been welcomed back by Jeremy Corbyn? You

came up to my constituency in Leeds over Christmas and New Year because

we were affected by the floods and people were very pleased to see him.

What about you? Have you been welcomed back? You were an

important, senior figure. We've been working closely together on the

issues of flood defences, insurance and things affecting my

constituents. You are not in the Shadow Cabinet. Are you happy with

the decision? Yes, I'm on the Treasury Select Committee and

enjoying my work. Being in the Shadow Cabinet is a 20 47

commitment. I did not vote for Jeremy Corbyn and I've got a family.

You have to throw everything into it in the Shadow Cabinet and are not

willing to make that sacrifice at that time in my life. Do you agree

with your colleague Michael do that the party has been fighting its so

intensely it has not been able to fight the Tories? That's right, it's

true. We are focusing inwardly on issues which don't really resonate

with the public about Trident, for example. We should be focusing on

issues that really matter to people, like, for example, the fact that

Britain is incredibly exposed to the financial turbulence going on around

the world at the moment because the economy has not been properly

rebalanced after the financial crisis. Who do you blame, if we are

talking about -- for talking about the wrong issues, things that don't

resonate with people? The leadership of the party have to take

responsibility for that. They've opened up the issue of Trident, that

was not an issue in the country. Because it is the party policy to

renew it? Yes, jobs depend on it but most importantly, our national

security depends on it. We should have learned those lessons in the

1980s. But the Labour Party membership are keen to have a look

at it again. At the Labour Party conference, we reaffirmed our

commitment to renewing Trident. This is pressure which is coming from the

leadership and not from the grassroots of the party. The longer

we spend debating these internal issues about how we select the

leader, Trident, the Falklands, the less time we are spending debating

things that really matter to people around their living standards, about

their schools and hospitals. Really, that is a dereliction of duty. Our

duty as an opposition party should be holding the government to account

and also setting out an alternative agenda. We have got good things to

say on that. John McDonnell did a good job at the weekend. But they

are being drowned out, you feel... Yes, by internal debate. Michael

Dugher said that Jeremy Corbyn had to pass a series of tests in May,

the elections, particularly in Scotland where Labour completely

failed. Do you think that if he does not pass those tests, he could face

a leadership challenge? I hope that we do pass those tests and I hope

that we are winning back seat. But there's no evidence of it at the

moment. Could Jeremy Corbyn face a leadership challenge if the party

failed to make ground? Don't underestimate Jeremy Corbyn, he won

support in the Labour Party and drew people into the Labour Party with

what he said. He now needs to capture that, get those campaigners

and supporters out on the doorstep, and take that fresh approach to

politics which actually, people are crying out for, translated onto the

doorstep and we will do that by focusing on issues which matter to

people. If we do that, we can win back seat in May in Scotland and

Wales and win back the London may rotate and seats around the country.

Should some of your colleagues who would describe themselves as

moderates stop criticising Jeremy Corbyn and let him get on with it? I

think most people are letting Jeremy Corbyn get on with it. But they are

criticising... To be fair, Michael Dugher wanted to serve in the Shadow

Cabinet but he was sacked from his position. I think he and others have

a right to say they think -- where they think it is going on. But

people like Andy Burnham and Hilary Benn, who did not vote for Jeremy

Corbyn are getting stuck in and taking the campaign to the Tories.

We have to focus on the issues that matter to people. The government

making big mistakes but we are not in a position to capitalise. Do you

think you are not in this position to capitalise on those because the

former pollster, Deborah Mattinson said the report into why the party

lost the election was a whitewash? I don't think it was a whitewash. I

think Margaret Beckett's report focused clearly on the issues I

heard on the doorstep. I thought that Labour could and would win the

general election so I got it wrong. But we were hearing the messages on

the doorstep about labour not dealing with the deficit, letting

too many immigrants in, that we were too soft on welfare and we did not

have strong enough leadership. We heard the messages over and over

again and that is what Margaret Beckett identified in the report.

Deborah Mattinson said you was apologetic and offensive and she did

not face up to the seriousness of the problem and has not made the

research public that Deborah Mattinson did. Should she? I think

Margaret Beckett's report was good and focused on the four things which

I think are the reasons we lost the election. If we address and face the

challenges, we can win again and we need to.

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

The question was who is not on the Tatler list of who reallty

Is it a) Ed Miliband, b) Nick Clegg, c) Boris Johnson,

Nick Clegg? Ed Miliband. You are both wrong. Jeremy Corbyn was not on

the list. That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests. Particularly, these two, who were

not on the Tatler list! I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with Liz Kendall.