28/01/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister caused a kerfuffle with his comments

about a 'bunch of migrants' in Calais.

Overnight the Government's announced a ?10 million plan to help more

unaccompanied Syrian child refugees, but is under pressure to spell out

exactly how many extra children will come to Britain.

Fresh from a court ruling against the so-called 'bedroom tax',

the Government suffers another defeat in the House of Lords

When they're not voting against the Government,

peers have also been wondering why they get such a bad press.

Do we all think they're ermine-clad champagne swillers with their snouts

It's one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.

most conspiracy theories aren't true - because people can't

All that in the next hour, and joining us as our co-conspirator

for the whole of the programme is our guest of the day Radek

He used to be the Foreign Minister of Poland,and most recently

he was Marshal of the Sejm in the Polish Parliament.

Which means he was roughly Warsaw's answer to speaker John Bercow.

First today let's talk about the Government's announcement

overnight that Britain is to accept more children who've become

separated from their families while fleeing the conflict in Syria

If you've picked up some of this morning's papers that might not be

Here for example is the front page of today's Mail with the headline:

'PM: Why we must not take three thousand migrant children'.

That figure of 3,000 has come from the charity Save the Children,

who say that's how many children are alone and potentially in danger

Well, last night the Government said it will work with

United Nations High Commission for Refugees on a new initiative

to resettle unaccompanied refugee children from conflict regions such

And the Government says it will create a new fund of up to ?10

million to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant

But it's not clear just how many more children the UK

Our political correspondent, Vicki Young can hopefully clear

Do we have any idea what the Government policy is? The Government

are not putting a number on it, because they say they will take the

advice of the aid agencies to identify the vulnerable children. If

we look at the ?10 million fund, the Home Office minister said that money

is partly to identify these vulnerable children. Then the Monday

eye is used to -- money is used to reconnect them with their families.

They will identify the children as vulnerable and try and establish, do

you have a mother, a father, a grandparent in the UK or any other

European country. If they do, they will try and get them back together.

But also the money will be used for schooling, housing and possibly

legal costs. But the Government are still sticking to what they said,

they prefer to keep families together, but they want to take

people from the camps in the region and not to bring in a policy that

would act as a magnet for people to make this journey. I spoke to one

Labour politician, who said they thought it was a bit of a muddle,

because the Government was divided and there had been squabbling inside

the Government. Has there been an indication of that. The question is

whether it is above the 20,000 they have already agreed to settle. That

is what was unclear. When you question ministers, they don't want

to say it will be, because that is still unresolved and they have

agreed they will take 20,000 Syrian refugees from the camps in the

region in the next five year. But we can't know whether the more

vulnerable children will be included. At the end of the day it

is local authorities that will deal with the resettlement of children

and they said the, the Local Government Association, what we are

talking about is 16 and 17-year-old young men, boys and teenagers,

they're the main numbers when we talk about vulnerable children,

rather than toddlers and some of pictures we have seen from the

camps, I asked the minister are you still saying you won't take people

from the camps. They are waiting for a court case about whether they will

have to take people from there and resettle them in the UK This

announcement came from political pressure. Doo country like Britain

and Poland have a duty to take uncompanied children and migrants?

First for disclosure I was a refugee in this country at the time of the

imposition of marshal law. I went back and became a friendly voice

towards Britain. It is a generous country. You can look at this policy

as a sort of investment in the future. Syria will one day be

hopefully a peaceful country and some of these people will go back

and will know British culture and be friendly to Britain. I also think

British policy on this is sophisticated. You're taking people

who are screened, who you will know something about. From the camps? On

the continent of Europe we have a different order of magnitude problem

of people who have come in and whose identifies and whose even countries

of origin are difficult to establish. Should Britain be taking

some of those people from Europe? I believe if every country in Europe

made a commitment similar to Britain's we would be getting ahold

of the problem. What we need to do and this what is the European

Commission and the president of European Commission has appealed to

do, we need a proper management of the external border of the Schengen

group. Only then will we size up the size of problem. As the Schengen

group, we are entitled to control who comes in. So you support the

idea of individual governments erecting national borders. No, on

the contrary to preserve the freedom of movement within Europe. It has

gone. We need to establish the external perimeter that works. Who

is to blame for the failure to come up with a comprehensive strategy to

deal with this crisis? Well this is a classic case of establishing a

system that benefits its members, like the eurozone, like Schengen. As

long as every member enforces the rules. It only takes one member to

break the rules for the system to be under strain. In both cases it is

the came country. We need to go from a system of voluntary enforcement of

the rules to a system where the rules are applied in the eurozone

and the Schengen group. But unbelievable pressure on the borders

of the countries that have faced the bruntd, in Greece and Italy. That is

why we need a European border guard to come to the help of states under

pressure. Poland and Finland have the longest external land bored. It

would be in Poland's interest to call on the European border guards.

Our border guards could help other countries. The Prime Minister

described people in the camps as a bunch of migrants was the tone and

language pejorative? Look, it's... Everyone of us have occasionally an

unguarded moment. I think the British policy on this is helpful.

Thank you. We have James Brokenshire, the Home Office

minister. Let's try and find out what the Government policy is on

refugees. Are we going to take in uncompanied refugee children? What

we have announced today as you are probably aware is work that we will

do with the UN to identify those who are orphan and separated and how we

may see those children coming to the UK as a result where the UN

identifies those vulnerable children and exceptional cases where they

judge that is appropriate. Recognising that in the majority of

cases they say that children are better to stay in the region where

there is family and those connections and what is in the best

interests of the children. Can you clarify what you mean by the region.

Are we talking about uncompanied children who have made it into

Europe or those in the middle eastern camps. There are two things.

I want to be clear. There are two elements. The first is the work with

the UNHCR on areas of conflict. So outside of Europe and seeing where

they have identified and advise us as the experts that there are

vulnerable children who are in need and could benefit from coming to the

UK and how we can facilitate that. That is over and above the existing

commitment of 20,000 where we have seen around a thousand come to if UK

before Christmas, around half of which were children. In addition we

have provided a ?10 million fund that is aimed at supporting children

within Europe. That maybe on things like shelter and counselling and

medical things. But it is also to create systems, better systems, in

place, to see that children are reunited with family elsewhere in

Europe, building on existing regulations, the Dublin regulations,

where EU countries can return people if they should have made an asylum

claim in the first country and if there are people with connections

they can be reunified. Are we going to accept refugee children who are

uncompanied, who are already in the European Union. Is the United

Kingdom going to do that? Under our Dublin regulations we have done that

and we will continue to do that. It is ma mechanism. How many? I can't

give you the numbers, because it is a question of establishing a family

connection within the UK in the first place, a parent, a sibling,

some close family member F you claim asylum in an EU country first and

can show that link to another EU country then under the Dublin

regulations you can go to that country to be reunified. So you're

telling me you can't Thame us how many -- tell us how many uncompanied

refugee children we have taken in and you won't tell me how many we

are planning to take in? What I can tell you up to the year until

September we had about 2,600 unaccompanied asylum seeking

children in the UK. What I can't tell you... From the rest of Europe

or not? That Would be from those who established in the UK and made that

claim here. The probability is the majority would have come from Europe

and it that is 2,600 that we are already processing and dealing with.

How many of those are here? Those 2,600 are in this country who have

made those claims and are unaccompanied asylum seeking

children and are being processed and dealt with by local authorities. If

we identified another 3,000 refugee children, uncompanied, who had close

relations in Britain and were already in the EU, would we take

them in? I think it's, from the indications we have, it is, it will

be establishing that family connection and the numbers are

relatively small to date. Because you have to show that you have got a

family member who is here already. The reason it is done on this basis

is to make request sure you don't make the situation worse and we are

seeing children put out in advance to get family resettlement and the

way people traffickers will exploit this. It is rather that you have to

see that family person who is here already and if you're claiming

asylum in another country you can be reconnected. It sounds light you

want to make it as slow and complicated as possible. No, the ?10

million that we have announceled is about getting better systems and

providing support into country like Italy and Greece to see you can

actually have better processing of claims. Some viewers may think

instead of talking accuse systems, you should be talking about young

lives that are in real danger to traffickers, drug dealers and

abusers and this country should show some humanity and take 3 thousand

uncompanied children. We are showing humanity by the work under our

resettlement scheme, a thousand people, half were children. That is

from the Middle East. I'm talking about in Europe. And dealing with

the claims we have here and the ?10 million fund is about providing

support to those children in most need and see they're getting the

medical and the counselling, the accommodation support. As long as

they don't come here? As I have said, we are playing our role

clearly in supporting Europe on rescuing people and seeing that

where there are reunion claims that are established that we are

fulfilling our obligations to help children and our focus is doing this

right. Not making the situation worse. Having the interest of the

children at the forefronts and how our work as a UK we can be proud in

helping thousands of children fleeing the war and doing it in the

right way. Thank you. The question for today

is all about motorcycle Our guest of the day has taken one

well-known British politician Was it - a) Diane Abbott,

b) Boris Johnson c) Jeremy Corbyn,

or d) Nigel Farage? At the end of the show we'll give

you the correct answer. The Government was defeated

in the House of Lords again last night over plans to cut

the benefits of people It's the second time this week,

and it's just the latest in a series of defeats in the upper chamber over

the Government's welfare reforms. Making work pay -

that was the Conservative's mantra In last year's Autumn Statement,

George Osborne reaffirmed the Government intends to make ?12

billion worth of savings Currently going through the House

of Lords is the Welfare Reform The Conservatives don't

have a majority in the upper house On Monday, they were defeated over

plans to redefine child poverty. Ministers had wanted to get rid

of income measurements and use other indicators such as unemployment

and low educational attainment. And yesterday the Government also

lost a vote on plans to reduce the Employment Support Allowance

by ?30 a week to encourage some Ministers also agreed to exempt some

families from plans to limit Universal Credit benefits

to only two children. Also yesterday, the Court of Appeal

ruled against the Government over the spare room subsidy,

or "bedroom tax". The legislation means families

deemed to have too much living space would lose a proportion

of their benefits, the idea being that it would free up

housing for more tenants. However the court found that it

discriminated against a domestic violence victim and the family

of a disabled teenager, and the ruling could have

implications for others Ministers have said

they will appeal. In the Commons earlier this mornnig

the Shadow Secretary of State asked an urgent question

on the court ruling. We know there are people

who need extra support. That's why we are providing

local authorities with Discretionary Housing

Payment funding. Local authorities are best placed

to assess people's needs in their area, and

identify where extra We have increased the amount

of Discretionary Housing Payment available, and on top

of the 560 million since 2011, we are providing an extra

870 million over The people involved

in these cases are receiving Discretionary Housing

Payments, that is precisely why we have Discretionary

Housing Payments, Mr Speaker, this ruling

was on two specific grounds. However, can the Minister

confirm that the bedroom He talks of Discretionary

Housing Payments. His own government report admitted -

dumped before Christmas - that 75% of victims do not receive

DHP, three quarters of those hit by the bedroom tax are

cutting back on food. Well, we're joined now by the Shadow

Work and Pensions Secretary Owen Smith, and by the Conservative

MP Chris Philp, he's a member And we did ask to speak

to a minister from the Department of Work and Pensions but no

offer was forthcoming. Chris Philp, the Court of Appeal has

ruled against you in a case of a single parent who is subject to such

domestic abuse that she had to install a secure panic room in her

house, and also the case of a teenager with acute mental and

physical disabilities. Why would you appeal against that ruling involving

cases like that? Most people with disabilities are exempted from the

removal of the spare room subsidy. A very small above cases, like the two

you mention, have slipped through the cracks, and that is what the DHP

is there to sort out. Both cases have been receiving discretionary

housing payments. Take the case of the disabled grandson, he lost ?14

per week when the subsidy was removed, but got given it back by

the discretionary housing payment, leaving him where he started. So the

system is working. The DHP is making up for those small mother of cases

that have slipped through the cracks. Many people might wonder,

when it involves such terrible cases, like a woman who was raped,

beaten, needed a panic room, and a family with a mental and physically

disabled teenager, they needed a spare room for overnight carers.

That's what they were asking for. Does that need to be discretionary?

Surely in a welfare state, that should be automatic. It's completely

reasonable they should have the money available and it's been made

available by the Housing fund. I think there are 231 out of the

initial 8000, now 500,000 cases, in terms of the domestic violence

cases. The cases that are very serious are getting the money. They

are not, unfortunately. The truth is that the government produced their

own evaluation of the bedroom tax, coming out just before Christmas. It

says that categorically, 75% of the 450,000 families affected by the

bedroom tax, don't get any discretionary housing payments. In

this instance, Paul Rutherford and his family were lucky enough, and

the other person, whose identity we don't know, a rape victim, were

lucky enough to get these payments. However, in the first instance, Paul

Rutherford's family were refused. They appealed and got it, but it

wasn't about the money they were losing, the ?14, which would have

been a lot of money, it was about the principle. They were brave

enough to go through with this. I have met this family, a loving and

lovely couple, looking after 15-year-old Warren, and it's

extraordinary the government are going to be Supreme Court to appeal

this. It's indefensible. The rules are unclear on discretionary

payments. They are only paid in arrears, and they only cover part of

the costs and sometimes they have to reapply. Some of these families,

don't they have enough to worry about without going through this as

well? In the case of Mr Rutherford, it covered all the ?14. The

discretionary housing fund, its ?870 million this Parliament, enough to

take care of 200,000 people like Mr Rutherford. There are plenty who can

be helped out. The principle of the subsidy is right. 500,000 people

were receiving extra money for rooms they were not using, which doesn't

apply for people receiving housing benefit in the private sector. It's

a point of fairness, why should people in public housing get a

better deal than those in private housing. And where people occupy

flats and houses that are too big, when we have families in overcrowded

accommodation, it makes sense to move people around, so that families

who need extra rooms can have them. Around 15,000 people so far have

moved into small accommodation because they didn't need a larger

flat. The government is saving about ?1 million per day in payments as a

result, that could pay for 18,000 nurses. If it were true, that might

be the case. But Chris can't tell you this, if the Minister were here,

they would be able to tell you that only 5% of people have been moved.

The truth is there are not sufficient flats and one-bedroom

houses for people to move to. We now have the problem of local hot

authorities with too many two and three-bedroom houses. The

fundamental question is, it's not the matter of pounds, shillings and

pence, they are relatively small amounts of money, but it's the moral

question of discriminating against people who are doing a service to

the country, looking after relatives who might be a burden on the state

otherwise, and it's a complete red herring, and a total short term lack

of efficiency to punish these people and diminish their ability to look

after their relatives. You are dealing with some of the most

vulnerable people in the country with the greatest needs. Why not

make life a bit more simple for them? It's very hard to write

legislation in Westminster that covers every single individual

circumstance. Just scrap it, get rid of it. About 0.1% of cases slip

through the net and they are being taken care of by discretionary

housing payments. Such is the cases we have discussed. The payments were

automatic beforehand, and now it's something to worry about. There is

always the fear you will not go through this discretionary process.

We heaping extra concern on people who already have their hands full

with human problems? The alternative is to scrap it entirely, as Owen

Smith is suggesting. That would then mean people in public housing are

getting a better deal than those in private housing, which is unfair,

and it would mean a number of people who don't need to live in larger

houses are living in those larger houses and flats. I think this is

the most effective way of dealing with a significant problem. I

completely accept Mr Rutherford should receive this money, the

difference between us is the mechanism for transmitting the

money. I think the discretionary housing payment system is the best

way of doing that. Chris, the court ruled yesterday that this is

illegal. The Court of Appeal said that not only is this wrong, it's

illegal and discrimination. If they are still getting the money, but

through a different mechanism, which we can agree or disagree is a weaker

mechanism or more fraught with difficulty, but if they are still

getting the money they would be entitled to under the previous

housing benefit system, why would it be illegal? Because it's

disseminated. That's the point they made. -- because it's Scrivener 83.

Chris said all disabled people are exempted. That isn't true. The very

case brought before the court was against disabled adults. Disabled

children are not exempt. That's discriminatory and that's why it's

illegal. If I'm looking after a disabled adult, then I still qualify

for the housing benefit. That's right. Looking after a disabled

child, why would you make that distinction? The presumption when

the rules were written a couple of years ago, is that the parents would

look after a disabled child, and you wouldn't need the room for a carer.

In this case the disability was so severe room for a carer was needed.

Looking back at the whole scheme, it's encouraging people to go into

work. As a result of this reform and other welfare reforms, hundreds of

thousands of people in the last five years have moved off welfare and

into work. It saves the taxpayer money, and more importantly, it

gives people a way out of poverty. Let the finish on two general

questions. First of all for Chris Philp. As I see from the government

figures, they are still looking for ?12 billion of welfare cuts by 2020.

Can you give us an idea of where that money will come from? The

welfare Bill currently going through Parliament, and it had its report

stage in the House of Lords yesterday, will find 70% of that ?12

billion of savings. For example, by introducing a welfare cap, so you

can't get more than ?23,000 per year in London... That doesn't give you

very much. It's an enormous bill. It freezes benefits for people not

disabled in the next four years. Will this reduced 12 billion? It

will produce 70% of it. More importantly, we are getting people

off welfare and into work. Figures out last week showed we have record

employment in this country. Unemployment is down to a 10-year

low, so getting people off welfare and into work is important. One more

question. Has Labour given up on welfare reform? Could you give us an

example of where Labour would reform welfare? Can I start by answering

Chris's question? We don't have time. Some of the money will be from

taking money away from working families. For billion pounds will

come away from working families. You are against the 12 billion cuts.

Could you give an example of a major welfare reform Labour would make? I

wouldn't offer the corporate welfare to Google that the government is

offering. That's not the answer to my question. So you have given up on

welfare reform? The bottom line is, we should not engage in a Dutch

auction with big government on the deal for poor families like the

Rutherford Coral. I'm not interested in engaging in that conversation. In

four years' time, what will welfare reform that lacklustre market will

look very different in the Labour. To its critics, the new conservative

government in Warsaw is transforming Poland into a nationalist,

anti-Western, A series of reforms to the country's

courts and media have even provoked It seems like there's a protest

in Poland pretty much every weekend. Last Saturday, it was about

the government's plans The weekend before,

it was about an overhaul of media regulations, which saw loads

of staff at the state And before Christmas,

protesters were hopping mad about changes to the

Constitutional Court. It follows last year's elections,

when the coalition led by the centrist Civic Platform

was replaced by Law and Justice - right-wing, Eurosceptic,

and popular with Catholic voters The party is chaired

by the former Prime Minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, with the new PM,

Beata Szydlo, there to provide She was hauled to the European

Parliament in Strasbourg last week It's different reforms

to what many countries, many governments, did, or usually do

when they get into power. But here they did it very quickly,

and many reforms at the same time, which gives the impression that this

party is kind of taking a firmer grip of the institutions and state

than the new government usually do. The leader of Law and Justice's

MEPs, told me that his party was just redressing the balance

from the last government. The European Union is facing

challenges by Schengen, immigration, the euro,

Brexit, Greece. So I think that what the majority

who should take decisions on the Polish constitution

are called, whether it is a simple majority or qualified majority -

come on, this is not really a big That's not how it's seen

by officials at the European Commission, who are using new powers

to investigate whether Poland The Poles could lose their voting

rights at EU summits as a result. David Cameron's MEPs are allies

with Law and Justice, and he's cosied up to the PM as part

of his renegotiation. He needs her, but she's not signed

up to his plans to limit benefits Could that possibly be why we have

just announced we will be sending 1,000 British troops to Poland

to help them stand up friendly next-door neighbour,

Russia? We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Daniel Kawczynski. He was born in Poland,

and our guest of the day was a minister belonging

to the party that was defeated by Law and Justice at last

year's Polish elections. And we welcome viewers in Scotland

at this point. The Government is accused of attempting a political

takeover of the constitutional court in Poland. So no wonder the EU is

investigating them? Well, I think it is important for politicians like

myself to engage with the Polish people in the United Kingdom, there

are over 800,000 Poles living here. Their view is it is too early to

assess this government and they think the law and justice party is

trying to recalibrate the court, because it was very top heavy.

Parliament's dismissed five elected judges. It is illegal. Well my

understanding is they have referred themselves to the Council of Europe

and the Venice commission is investigating this. And an outcome

of their report will be published next month. I'm interested to know

what the results will be and I think at that juncture it will be

appropriate to publish when we know what they come up. Isn't this a

redressing of the balance of law and justice Party, they have got rid of

people who are opponents, icht was stacked with supporters of your

government. Well law and justice won a democratic election with 38% of

the vote. They have a six member majority in Parliament and they're

entitled to rule. What they're not entitled to do in my view is to

change the rules. In your previous item we had the British system of

judicial review of legislation and in Poland the constitutional court

does that. We were in power for eight years, so a number of

appointments came up, just as in the US Supreme Court, past majorities do

matter. If you paralyse the constitutional court, then that is

serious. Also having a small majority doesn't entitle you I think

in the British system to purge all the managers and journalists of BBC

or to change the rules of selection in the civil service and to

politicalise them. But I agree the Venice commission is the right body

to pronounce on this, because the EU peer review process is a new one and

untested. Is this what is going on, purging in the media, dismantling

the civil service, challenging the rule of law, that is what the

government is doing there? No, I think it is important to recognise

that this is the first time that any political party has received a

majority of its own within the Polish Parliament. That is the first

time it has happened since the fall of communism and the law and justice

party have the presidency and won the presidency and the Parliamentary

elections. So this is the first time under any political party is in a

position to make more substantial constitutional changes. Are they

though illegal and a challenge to democracy? The Government has given

itself the power to hire and fire the heads of public TV and Europe.

Europe says that is unacceptable in a genuine democracy. I think again

talking with the Polish people in London, I think there is a concern

or what has been conveyed to me by members of the Polish communities is

there a concern about this sheer scale of foreign control of the

Polish media and there are real tensions and worries about that and

the law and justice party is seeking to address that. We both want what

is best for Poland, if something is being done unconstitutional, then

the Venice convention can ajute Kate. You don't agree with the EU

investigating and the Prime Minister being called to the EU to be give

given a dressing down. There is a concern about some of language being

used by people like Martin Schultz that is considered to be defamatory

to Poland. It is a country that until recently had no freedom at

all. When it comes to European institutions trying to dictate the

will of a democratic government, of course issues of concern are raised.

Should the EU just back off Poland and this new government and there

were claims that she return a hero. There was out thes as to similar --

doubts as to similar actions by the government of Hungary. But we are a

family of democratic nations and peer review is a mechanism we use in

the eurozone, we look at one another's budgets and we are

entitled to look at one another's institutions and behaviour. And

maintaining democratic standards is an important part of what it means

to be a part of European Union. Is it fair that Poland has used the

UK's EU renegotiation as leverage for UK troops to come to Poland to

beef up the military presence there and deter Russian aggression? That

is something I challenged the Prime Minister on on the floor of the

House a few weeks ago. I am very prosupporting Poland, being the only

British member of Parliament born in Poe land. I challenged the Prime

Minister on this, because it is worrying for me if Poland is trying

to conflate its security issues with our own renegotiation with the EU

and much as I understand their wish and desire to have a permanent NATO

base east of Warsaw to show the Russians that we are serious about

protecting Poland, I don't believe the issues should be conflated. That

is for discussion within NATO and not the renegotiation. I said that

strongly to the Prime Minister. Thank you.

David Cameron was due to head to Sweden and Denmark this week

to talk to his opposite numbers about his plans to renegotiate

But yesterday, Downing Street announced that the trip

has been cancelled - instead, the Prime Minister

is off to Brussels to meet European Commission President

It's been interpreted as a sign that the PM has had to make

a last-ditch appeal to Mr Juncker, who isn't exactly his best friend,

in the hopes of striking a renegotiation deal ahead of next

Well, our Brussels correspondent Ben Wright can tell us more.

Are these talks in some difficulty, or is this just part of normal give

and take in the build up to a deal? Well part of cunning choreography

that allows Downing Street to say in the teeth of great opposition they

wrestled a great victory for Britain? I don't think so. It is

difficult to work out why the trip to Scandinavia was abandoned in

favour of a trip to Brussels to see Jean-Claude Juncker. No 10 said it

is not a panic move and officials are not speculating here. We know on

across the four baskets that David Cameron is basing hiss renegotiation

there are difficulties. Particularly the benefits and migration issue. A

deal has not been done. Officials in the European council are trying to

come up with a set of draft conclusions to send around European

capitals at the start of next week. That will trigger two and a half

weeks of very public negotiation and haggling ahead of council meeting

here in three weeks time. It gets going in earnest next week and then

we will have a better idea about what is on the table and what David

Cameron has managed to get. Thank you.

Radek Sikorsky, what would you accept on migration. There are

complicated issues and the new government is trying to introduce in

Poland universal child benefit, that is very expensive and this

discussion about whether some people will not go to work and take care of

the children. But first, I think we should remember that the 800,000 or

so Polish people who live here have come here to work. Not to claim

benefit. But we are talking about in work benefit, until they're working

they may be getting in work benefits the government wants to restrict it,

I'm trying to determine, given Poland has a major say in this, what

you would regard as a reasonable restriction? What would be

reasonable would be for Britain to make its welfare system more

European. If you Neil, Andrew, lost your job and came to Poland to seek

for a job, we couldn't give you housing or unemployment benefit from

day one. You would have had to have a job. Many people will say we were

the first welfare state, why should we have to change our state, to suit

European standards. You're welcome to do so. But don't complain it is

costly, because it is. Ours is more focussed on people who have made the

contributions and... You know wir not going to change our welfare

state anywhere enough in time in time for a renegotiation. So is it

possible? I think you can and you may change it, provided it is done

possible? I think you can and you in a nondiscriminatory fashion. It

won't be done before the referendum. By the time of referendum, you will

also not change European treaties, all you will get from Europe in the

process of this is the political agreement to do the kinds of thing

that David Cameron needs to persuade the British people to vote yes. I

think we should give him what we can within the treaty. The backdrop to

the referendum, and it is causing Downing Street concern, because they

don't like what the backdrop could be, the EU is in real trouble, it is

in crisis over the migrant issue. The French Prime Minister said that

the EU is in grave danger. Why should Britain stay in an unstugs in

grave danger? Why should Britain add to those

European woes? It's a self-inflicted problem. When Europe and some of the

member states of weekend, Britain could lead Europe on issues such as

foreign policy, defence, single market, services. Europe is learning

for British leadership. By having this referendum you are depriving

yourself the authority. That's the Foreign Office language. The fact is

Britain can't give leadership on these issues, not a member of the

euro or Schengen. Your Polish colleague has said that Schengen

could face collapse, and everything that has been tried on the European

migrant crisis has failed. So far 414 have been reallocated. Europe

did seem to be in a real mess, as this referendum takes place in this

country. And that's why we don't need Britain leaving, and adding to

the problems. I don't think it would be in Britain's interests. Half a

millennium of British policy was to prevent the continent uniting to the

exclusion of the United Kingdom. The consequences for Scotland, Ireland,

Ulster, would be severe. We need to stick together. Is the back in its

worst crisis? There is an accumulation of crisis and we need

to resolve it through leadership, and we need leadership from Britain

also. Is the House of Lords

being systematically undermined That was a view expressed

in the Upper Chamber last night, as peers said the public

were being given a distorted view of them as ermine-clad champagne

swiggers with their The world is changing,

our circumstances are changing. We are being systematically

undermined and ridiculed. Some of it is our own fault,

but I do think most of it is not, and we have to be prepared

to fight our own corner. And nobody will pay any

attention to us if we don't. Caricatures abound -

ermine clads, swilling champagne, swanning around your lordships'

house at the taxpayer's expense. That might sell newspapers,

but it doesn't give any A highly distorted

myth is relentlessly peddled of everyone

with their snouts in the trough, greedily pocketing ?300

a day for turning up. We're joined now by the peer

who called the debate, Robin Hodgson, who wants to see

the House of Lords do more How? Most large organisations and

companies have what they call a rapid rebuttal unit to deal with

issues of fact. Not about political bias, that's completely different,

but about real events that are misreported and extorted. There is

already a press office already for the House of Lords. It's a very good

press office, but it is not as proactive as it is reactive. We put

out a very sensible piece of research, and they do spend late in

publicising and ensuring that you and others know about it. But they

are not empowered to deal with stories that break. Are they not

empowered? Details of the House of Lords press office are there online

to help journalists, covering the House of Lords and the works of the

Lords and committees. Surely that could incorporate what you want. It

might be in the writing, but it is not in the facts. The reality is

that stories are left to run, and are not corrected. I emphasise these

are stories about fact, not political activity, which is a

different matter. Rather than the Lords investing more resources into

self-promotion, which is what you're talking about. I'm not, it's not

self promotion at all. It's about making sure we have the accurate

facts. It's not self-promotion and it's important it shouldn't be self

promotion. It's about making sure the real facts of what the house

does are reported. Why don't you club together with your own money

and establish this instead of expecting the taxpayer to pay for

it? I'm not sure any organisation in the country expects its own members

to pay for a rebuttal unit. But you have a press office, which you don't

think does its job, so you want this unit, you get ?300 per day, each

chip in the ?50, and you have a rebuttal unit. We could do it for

you! I'm sure you would do very well. We would do it for less! Have

there been complaints about the quality of champagne? There has

never been a complaint about that. There was a headline, a tizz about

fizz. That was written by the Economist, not our headline.

Wouldn't it be better to make sure your debates more topical, for

example. If you are worried about positive media attention for peers?

We have a range of topical debates. Who decides if they are topical? I'm

not suggesting we should promote political activities. These are

about things like champagne, that picture behind you will appear once

in at State opening. The rest of the time we are wearing suits, like I am

now, and that's how we work. But you don't publish that, it's too

one-sided. There is a genuine problem with the Lords, and I speak

as a former speaker, of not so much information being correct, and

individual members don't have the resources to take people to court,

to publicise things and correct the information. It's in the public

interest for information about public institutions to be correct,

and it's not enough to rely on individual members, and you need

such a rebuttal. What about recruitment? Is it not in your role,

you were a speaker, but the leader of the house should be doing this

sort of thing for you? I have three jobs already. It's obviously a very

popular job. We dissed want to see the colour of your money. I want one

of those roads. -- one of those ermine clad robes.

Now who thinks the moon landing was faked?

That JoCo is part of a secretive order running the country?

Well, some of the most popular conspiracy theories have taken a bit

of a knock this week, thanks to new research from one

academic at Oxford University who's come up with an equation that

suggests that many conspiracies, if they existed, would unravel.

It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

OK, so this is probably the best-known conspiracy theory,

that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were not actually here on the moon.

In fact, they were in a high-tech studio, not dissimilar to this one.

Because I'm not actually on the moon.

Which is a shame because I had wanted to plant a flag.

But space is a popular frontier when it comes to a conspiracy,

especially when space seems to come to you.

We have all heard of Roswell and Area 51, and what may or may not

In fact, such are the numbers of people interested in this stuff,

that David Cameron spotted a gap in the market.

During the 2010 election campaign, he pledged more government

The truth, and the votes, are out there.

MUSIC: Jailhouse Rock by Elvis Presley.

Another conspiracy magnet is this guy, the suggestion being that

For a start, lots of people say they've seen him

On the flipside, there's a theory that Paul McCartney,

who appears to be alive and kicking, is in fact, dead.

The claim is he died in the 1960s and was replaced by a look

The proof - well, have you ever tried playing

There are plenty of conspiracy theories relating to politicians.

the assassination of John F Kennedy.

But there was another one about a more modern day President,

that Barack Obama wasn't actually born in the USA,

He ended up dramatically proving the so-called birthers wrong

Why he didn't do it when everyone else was asking for it,

There are those who say one of the biggest conspiracies

of all is right here in the seat of power.

That those in charge are part of an extraterrestrial,

shape-shifting reptilian-humanoid elite.

DAVID CAMERON VOICEOVER: The aspersion you are trying

to cast, I think, is completely ridiculous.

Tony Gosling is a journalist who investigates conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories would involve so many people, that it would be

impossible to keep them secret overtime. David Grimes, who has done

the research, is a physicist, really good at that stuff, but he's not a

social scientist and I don't think he's looked at the background of how

conspiracy theories are being used. Since the JFK assassination you

mentioned, the New York Times in the 80s did a Freedom of information

request and they found the word conspiracy theory, and the concept

of it, was a weaponised term they could use in order to put down

criticism of the Warren commission, that was investigating Kennedy's

death. Our jobs as journalists is to sort the wheat from the chaff, not

to mix them up, which is what they want to do. Our job is also to

establish facts, and we do that by people coming forward. If the JFK

assassination was a conspiracy, or the landing on the moon was a

conspiracy, so many people would have been involved, that somebody at

some stage would have spoken to people like you or me, but it's

never happened in any credible way. Not necessarily with JFK, because

the FBI and CIA are involved, spies and detectives. And they don't leak?

The whole part of their job is to keep secrets. That's part of the

job. How do we know about the 12 assassination attempts against Fidel

Castro? One of the reasons we have seen a big increase in conspiracy

theories recently, partly the Internet, and also we have seen

things like chemical trails, and I would dismiss these things, but it's

partly the government's mental-health cut. I think there are

a lot of problems out there for people who are looking to something

to latch onto and see it as a conspiracy. Things like the

Bo-lieving club running the country, that's not a conspiracy, that's

happening. -- the Bullingdon club. Cecil Rhodes was in that club. What

real conspiracy do you believe in? What's the biggest conspiracy that

you think might be true? The Edward Snowden revelations about the

security services are really good. Here in Bristol, perhaps it's a bit

different to London, but we love conspiracies. All of the best seem

to come out of fear. What's the biggest you believe to be true with

evidence? All the biggest stories have started as conspiracy theories,

and then it's a wrestle the see if they get out into the public. My

favourite is the builder Berg conference, the conferences started

by a former SS officer in 1960s. This is the oil barons and financial

managers of the world meeting together to select our politicians

will stop I think nowadays elections are not about policies, but more

about psychological warfare. Bilderberg selects our politicians?

We should have a word with them about doing a better job.

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

Which well-known British politician has been taken for a ride

Was it - a) Diane Abbott, b) Boris Johnson

c) Jeremy Corbyn, or d) Nigel Farage?

So Radek what's the correct answer?

It was Boris. Why? Because we are friends. Where did you go? We were

going round my constituency in Poland, where I thought that for

once, I would be the star. We went into the main square. It was a

conspiracy! That's all for today,

thanks to our guests. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11:45pm

tonight for This Week, where I'll be joined by Labour MP

Caroline Flint This is the FA Cup,

and anything can happen. The FA Cup fourth round.

It's a stunner!