25/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles