:00:37. > :00:39.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics
:00:40. > :00:42.Downing Street warns that the jungle migrant camp could move to England
:00:43. > :00:45.if we leave the EU - but are voters being scared
:00:46. > :00:54.The Prime Minister unveils plans for wholesale reform of prisons
:00:55. > :00:57.and slams their "scandalous failure" - but after almost six years
:00:58. > :01:01.in power, who's to blame for that failure?
:01:02. > :01:03.From party chairman to humble backbencher -
:01:04. > :01:05.but was Grant Shapps just the fall guy for a scandal
:01:06. > :01:13.And can political parties stop Google making unhelpful
:01:14. > :01:26.All that in the next hour on this Chinese New Year's Day.
:01:27. > :01:29.And with us, as we enter the year of the monkey,
:01:30. > :01:31.the former Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps -
:01:32. > :01:36.he was born in a year of the monkey - and the Shadow Defence Minister,
:01:37. > :01:42.Toby Perkins, who was born in the year of the dog.
:01:43. > :01:45.First this morning, could the jungle migrant camp move to southern
:01:46. > :01:49.That's the warning we're told David Cameron will deliver,
:01:50. > :01:53.as he tries to concentrate minds on the possible national
:01:54. > :02:00.The migrant camp in Calais known as the jungle is home to several
:02:01. > :02:02.thousand migrants hoping to reach the UK.
:02:03. > :02:08.But with UK border guards posted at French ports,
:02:09. > :02:11.including Calais, working with the support of French police,
:02:12. > :02:14.they have found it increasingly difficult to cross the channel.
:02:15. > :02:17.David Cameron's arguing that the agreement with France that
:02:18. > :02:20.allows British border guards to be posted on the French side
:02:21. > :02:23.of the channel could be imperilled if we left the EU.
:02:24. > :02:31.Let's talk to our assistant political editor, James Landale.
:02:32. > :02:39.James, those commons will raise the temperature on the debate over
:02:40. > :02:45.whether we remain in the EU are not? They are. They are timed to be part
:02:46. > :02:48.of that debate. There was a deal in 2003 that the UK and French would
:02:49. > :02:54.stick border guards on each other's territory. The aim was to deter
:02:55. > :02:58.asylum seekers from coming to northern France. It has failed. The
:02:59. > :03:03.French Interior Minister is on record as saying he would like to
:03:04. > :03:06.change this arrangement. The Prime Minister has spoken before about
:03:07. > :03:09.this but he is now allowing this to be put out there that he thinks
:03:10. > :03:16.there is genuinely a risk to this bilateral deal. That is if Britain
:03:17. > :03:20.were to leave the EU. That is the claim. That is what is being backed
:03:21. > :03:26.up by ex-British border chiefs on the radio this morning. However,
:03:27. > :03:31.those campaigning to take Britain out of the European Union say this
:03:32. > :03:34.is pretty rubbish scaremongering by the Prime Minister. That he has no
:03:35. > :03:39.evidence this is what the French will do. And actually the cause of
:03:40. > :03:45.the problem in Calais is that the EU is not good enough at dealing with
:03:46. > :03:52.immigration issues. It is a hot debate. Is it also part of David
:03:53. > :03:56.Cameron's recognition that his four baskets are hardly going to set this
:03:57. > :04:04.debate on fire, or even relates to the voting public, while talking on
:04:05. > :04:08.big issues like security will? The Prime Minister will say he has
:04:09. > :04:13.always made the security argument. It was part of his big speech last
:04:14. > :04:15.autumn at Chatham House, where he made the argument of you leave the
:04:16. > :04:20.European Union there is a threat to national security, a claim
:04:21. > :04:26.challenged by the other side. What is really interesting and what is a
:04:27. > :04:32.risk for him, is that if he is seen to be taking the remaining arguments
:04:33. > :04:37.down the route of what we now call Project Fear, a bit of jargon that
:04:38. > :04:41.grew up during the Independence Referendum in Scotland, this idea
:04:42. > :04:45.that his argument is based on a warning of the negative consequences
:04:46. > :04:50.if Britain leads the European Union, then there is a risk that the other
:04:51. > :04:53.side of his argument, namely the positive benefits about Britain
:04:54. > :04:58.being part of the European Union, that gets washed out. He gets
:04:59. > :05:01.accused of being a guy who just gets -- who just warns about the
:05:02. > :05:08.disasters that may happen. The trouble for the main camp is to try
:05:09. > :05:09.to balance that. -- the remain calm. It is a balance they will struggle
:05:10. > :05:12.to maintain. We're joined now by
:05:13. > :05:22.the Conservative MP, Do you share the Prime Minister's
:05:23. > :05:27.concerns? Has he got a valid point? No. I don't think he has. He is
:05:28. > :05:33.resorting to panic and scaremongering partly because
:05:34. > :05:38.Downing Street is in panic mode because it's so-called concessions
:05:39. > :05:41.are not holding water. The red card has proved to be a washed-up Lottery
:05:42. > :05:49.ticket, and the emergency brake on immigration has been driven by an EU
:05:50. > :05:54.backstreet -- back-seat driver. This is a bilateral treaty with France.
:05:55. > :05:58.Nothing to do with the EU. There is no reason to suppose that such
:05:59. > :06:04.treaties cannot continue whether we are in or outside the EU. What would
:06:05. > :06:08.the motivation be for the French? There is nothing in it for them.
:06:09. > :06:15.What would you say Grant Schapps to the claim that this is panic? I have
:06:16. > :06:22.no idea if that is true or not. I am not here to answer for them. I have
:06:23. > :06:26.always been a pretty Eurosceptic MP. I was a Eurosceptic minister. I
:06:27. > :06:30.hated having papers put in front of me with the option of not being able
:06:31. > :06:35.to do anything about it because it was decided by Europe. All of the
:06:36. > :06:39.arguments about Europe are absolutely fair and proper arguments
:06:40. > :06:42.to have. In the end people will have to decide on the fundamentals of
:06:43. > :06:47.whether they think this country will be more secure in or out of Europe.
:06:48. > :06:52.I think that is where the detail of this discussion is going to be
:06:53. > :06:57.imported. Do you think it will resonate? Is there a likelihood that
:06:58. > :07:01.if Britain pulls out of the EU, that those migrant camps in Calais would
:07:02. > :07:06.move to the south of England? It will resonate as an argument in
:07:07. > :07:10.terms of this being something people feel passionate about. If people
:07:11. > :07:19.like John Barrymore, do his conclusion, it will strengthen their
:07:20. > :07:30.side. People who believe in the prime -- Prime Minister's view...
:07:31. > :07:35.This is the issue today. Security issues are important. Do you believe
:07:36. > :07:38.the Prime Minister? Is this a real threat? If we pulled out would we
:07:39. > :07:44.see migrant camps on the south coast? It is another issue you have
:07:45. > :07:46.to weigh up. Will it sway people one where the other? I suspect the
:07:47. > :07:52.answer to that is it will sway those where the other? I suspect the
:07:53. > :07:58.against and those in favour. It is not the issue I will be deciding on.
:07:59. > :08:03.I will decide whether it is better for the country economically and
:08:04. > :08:07.politically. You say the facts are this is a bilateral agreement, and
:08:08. > :08:09.that is true. But I put to you that there is no
:08:10. > :08:10.that is true. But I put to you that French government to maintain that
:08:11. > :08:14.bilateral agreement French government to maintain that
:08:15. > :08:18.to pull out of the EU. There is nothing in it for them. It has not
:08:19. > :08:19.to pull out of the EU. There is worked for them. At the new Beast so
:08:20. > :08:23.sure the Prime Minister is wrong? worked for them. At the new Beast so
:08:24. > :08:30.how can you be so sure? It comes worked for them. At the new Beast so
:08:31. > :08:35.You can guarantee the sovereignty of your borders.
:08:36. > :08:36.You can guarantee the sovereignty of your immigration policy. Let France
:08:37. > :08:44.police your immigration policy. Let France
:08:45. > :08:48.guarantee the integrity of your borders, that is what this debate is
:08:49. > :08:54.about, it is about sovereignty. One other point, if I may. We must have
:08:55. > :08:59.a positive debate. Unfortunately we seem to be in Project Fear at the
:09:00. > :09:08.moment. An informed debate is a positive debate about the merits of
:09:09. > :09:13.the ins and outs of Europe. Do you agree with that, Toby Perkins, that
:09:14. > :09:19.actually negative messages like this are just going to turn people away?
:09:20. > :09:24.The truth is nobody can tell us what out looks like. That is the greatest
:09:25. > :09:28.difficulty John has. He says we would take control of our
:09:29. > :09:32.sovereignty. We would still consider asylum applications if we were
:09:33. > :09:38.outside of the EU. We will not consider them in Calais but when
:09:39. > :09:44.people arrive. The problem that the ad campaign has is they cannot tell
:09:45. > :09:47.us what they are voting for. Hold on a minute, you are confusing the
:09:48. > :09:53.issue. Asylum and immigration act two separate things. When it comes
:09:54. > :09:58.to asylum I am sure we will continue to be a tolerant nation. But when it
:09:59. > :10:03.comes to immigrants and economic migration, if we come out of the EU,
:10:04. > :10:07.we would restore our sovereignty, restore control of our borders and
:10:08. > :10:12.we could simply say no, like many other countries do across the world.
:10:13. > :10:15.Does this needs to be a positive campaign? Look at what happened
:10:16. > :10:20.during the Scottish referendum campaign. That again was all about
:10:21. > :10:28.negative messaging that made it difficult in the end for the in
:10:29. > :10:34.campaign? Ultimately Scotland decided to stay in. If you are
:10:35. > :10:38.arguing effectively for the status quo, inevitably part of your
:10:39. > :10:43.argument has to be, would we be worse off if we came out? On a whole
:10:44. > :10:48.raft of issues, like how we would trade with the rest of the EU and
:10:49. > :10:52.the rest of the world, if were not part of those negotiations, how we
:10:53. > :10:58.would police these regulations, the impact of jobs -- on jobs, pensions
:10:59. > :11:04.etc, if you cannot tell us what it is going to look like if you come
:11:05. > :11:08.out, why should we believe the Prime Minister would negotiate a better
:11:09. > :11:13.deal if we were out? If you look at the comments from the Interior
:11:14. > :11:17.Minister in France, he said the UK could expect countermeasures if it
:11:18. > :11:23.leaves. He is talking about countermeasures to do with border
:11:24. > :11:28.control. There you have it, from the horse's mouth. That is a veiled
:11:29. > :11:36.threat. If you pull out of the EU and you take control of your
:11:37. > :11:40.borders, you can maintain integrity of your borders. It comes back to
:11:41. > :11:45.the issue of sovereignty. If you control your borders, you can
:11:46. > :11:48.maintain the integrity of those borders. You want good neighbourly
:11:49. > :11:54.relations, you want bilateral agreements. One is not suggesting
:11:55. > :11:58.you close shop. The bottom line is you can say no. It is as simple as
:11:59. > :12:03.that. We do not have that ability at the moment because we have a lot of
:12:04. > :12:08.economic migration putting pressure on public services. Britain can
:12:09. > :12:12.police France's borders at the moment to stop that issue coming to
:12:13. > :12:17.Britain. That may be under threat. You cannot say one where other. The
:12:18. > :12:21.Prime Minister and the French Interior Minister have had the lobby
:12:22. > :12:26.with the Westminster journalists, and Downing Street says if Britain
:12:27. > :12:30.votes to pull out of the European Union, thousands could come to the
:12:31. > :12:36.UK overnight to claim asylum. What do you say to that? Is that not
:12:37. > :12:41.true? It may be true. We do not know what the numbers are. Those are
:12:42. > :12:45.claims by people who are trying to play Project Fear a little bit. The
:12:46. > :12:51.problem is, those asylum seekers, whoever they may be, will be judged
:12:52. > :12:55.on their individual merits. The bottom line is you would still have
:12:56. > :13:00.the integrity of your borders. And if these asylum applications do not
:13:01. > :13:06.pass muster, you could return them. At the moment would you vote to pull
:13:07. > :13:14.out? I'm waiting for the final agreement. What about now? You're
:13:15. > :13:17.undecided, clearly. I have always been a Eurosceptic minister. I found
:13:18. > :13:21.it difficult to be told by Europe what we should be doing. David
:13:22. > :13:30.Cameron has been repeatedly underestimated for the deals he has
:13:31. > :13:33.ended up getting in Europe. There are about 100 competencies the UK
:13:34. > :13:37.pulled out during the last five-year parliament, the first time that has
:13:38. > :13:42.ever happened. He has shown himself capable of getting these things in
:13:43. > :13:45.the past. We have not had all 27 countries agree to whatever the
:13:46. > :13:53.packages. We have not had the detail. To say, would I agree with
:13:54. > :13:59.the today, is not possible. You could be persuaded either way?
:14:00. > :14:06.Correct. On that basis, what would persuade you to stay in or vote out?
:14:07. > :14:11.I think it is the tone of the thing. If this is really a line in the sand
:14:12. > :14:16.where Europe gets that ever closer union is not for all of its members,
:14:17. > :14:19.and takes this referendum is being an important turning point in
:14:20. > :14:24.European destiny, I think it will have justified staying in. If it has
:14:25. > :14:29.not, then in fact we would be back to where we were in the previous
:14:30. > :14:35.referendum in 1975. Do you think he will toughen up this deal in the
:14:36. > :14:41.next few weeks? I don't quite see how. I don't know. It is speculation
:14:42. > :14:43.on my part. I don't know the answer. That is why I am so keen to see what
:14:44. > :14:43.happens. According to Lord Pearson,
:14:44. > :14:47.what animal did Margaret Thatcher An octopus, a slot, a cow or a
:14:48. > :15:06.snake? The Prime Minister will shortly be
:15:07. > :15:09.making a speech on prison reform in which he will criticise
:15:10. > :15:11.the "scandalous failure" of prisons. Describing his plans for the justice
:15:12. > :15:14.system in England and Wales, he says he believes 'prison reform
:15:15. > :15:17.should be a great progressive cause David Cameron will announce a pilot
:15:18. > :15:25.scheme of six new reform prisons, which will be given full autonomy
:15:26. > :15:27.over how they operate The Prime Minister wants prisoners
:15:28. > :15:32.to be viewed as "potential assets to be harnessed" rather
:15:33. > :15:34.than "liabilities to be managed". And he will promise to protect
:15:35. > :15:37.the ?130 million a year prison education budget and give more
:15:38. > :15:39.control over education It is also rumoured
:15:40. > :15:53.that the government may be planning to allow inmates near the end
:15:54. > :15:56.of their sentences out of jail His speech comes in the wake
:15:57. > :16:00.of a series of policy U-turns by Justice Secretary Michael Gove,
:16:01. > :16:03.who took over from Chris Grayling Gove has reversed his predecessor's
:16:04. > :16:08.plans to overhaul the legal aid system and lifted restrictions
:16:09. > :16:10.on the number of books He also cancelled a ?5.9 million
:16:11. > :16:18.contract to train Saudi prison service staff,
:16:19. > :16:20.and scrapped the criminal courts charge less than a year
:16:21. > :16:27.after it was introduced. We're joined now by former
:16:28. > :16:39.Chief Inspector of Prisons, Welcome to the show. David Cameron
:16:40. > :16:47.is talking today of a scandalous failure of our prisons, who is to
:16:48. > :16:51.blame for that? Well, it is cumulative because when I started
:16:52. > :16:56.inspecting 20 years ago, the prison system was in a terrible state, and
:16:57. > :17:01.I walked out of my first inspection of Holloway where I found that women
:17:02. > :17:07.were routinely change while in Labour. The seeds of the system were
:17:08. > :17:10.sown then because when I walked out of Holloway, I went to see the
:17:11. > :17:14.director-general of the prison service and asked if I could see the
:17:15. > :17:20.of women's prisons and he said there isn't one and there still is not.
:17:21. > :17:24.There isn't a director of any type of prison or prisoner except for the
:17:25. > :17:29.high security prisons, and that was put in after the escapes from
:17:30. > :17:35.Parkhurst and Whitemoor, under Michael Howard's regime. What did
:17:36. > :17:39.you think more recently of Michael Gove's predecessor in terms of
:17:40. > :17:43.dealing with the prison system? I thought he got it all wrong, he
:17:44. > :17:48.rushed a whole lot of reforms through without making them through,
:17:49. > :17:53.and he was particularly responsible for the reduction in staff by 33%
:17:54. > :17:58.which meant that there were not enough people to do anything with
:17:59. > :18:05.the prisoners. Do you agree? Those figures are pretty startling. The
:18:06. > :18:13.number of posts which were cut were 1375 when public sector prisons were
:18:14. > :18:18.closed, and some ?900 million were slashed on the budget. This falls
:18:19. > :18:21.into the category of a vast range of public services, my interest was in
:18:22. > :18:26.local councils at the time and what they were doing, and they were doing
:18:27. > :18:31.things better with fewer people, so I don't know how it has precisely
:18:32. > :18:35.impacted on things. Well, it has, very adversely. You have to make
:18:36. > :18:39.decisions when you govern and some of them are tough decisions to make,
:18:40. > :18:43.and they are not always the things you would like to do. Fortunately,
:18:44. > :18:48.six years on, you're getting to the point where by the end of this
:18:49. > :18:52.parliament we will be able to see services which will mean we have
:18:53. > :18:55.more choices. Was Chris Grayling writes to cut those
:18:56. > :18:59.more choices. Was Chris Grayling restrict the number of books to
:19:00. > :19:04.inmates, and to leave prisons which were overflowing?
:19:05. > :19:05.inmates, and to leave prisons which accurate. Overflowing and crowded,
:19:06. > :19:10.we were made accurate. Overflowing and crowded,
:19:11. > :19:15.which enables more places. There are many things which needs to happen.
:19:16. > :19:16.which enables more places. There are Most obviously, these prisons in
:19:17. > :19:18.very expensive places Most obviously, these prisons in
:19:19. > :19:20.a sample which do Most obviously, these prisons in
:19:21. > :19:25.there, which are big touring in nature, and could be sold to
:19:26. > :19:28.there, which are big touring in far better modern prison services,
:19:29. > :19:34.that would make sense in a is Shapps right about overcrowding in prisons
:19:35. > :19:39.and that that there are enough staff still to look after the number of
:19:40. > :19:43.prisoners? The grisly overcrowded and the Chief inspector described
:19:44. > :19:48.them as cases of violence, squalor and idleness which Michael Gove
:19:49. > :19:54.agreed with. There are not enough staff. 33% cuts means there are not
:19:55. > :19:57.enough people to do the work with prisoners. Michael Gove has
:19:58. > :20:01.enough people to do the work with acknowledged that and is trying to
:20:02. > :20:06.bring back more staff but one of the problems, and Shapps
:20:07. > :20:10.bring back more staff but one of the the big problems with those is that
:20:11. > :20:14.no staff the big problems with those is that
:20:15. > :20:16.prisons where they are working and they have
:20:17. > :20:21.prisons where they are working and Quite apart from the fact that those
:20:22. > :20:27.prisons are not really suitable for doing the work that is required in
:20:28. > :20:32.the 21st-century. Do you think Labour also has questions to ask,
:20:33. > :20:36.bearing in mind that Lord Ramsbottom said the
:20:37. > :20:39.bearing in mind that Lord Ramsbottom ago? You mentioned Michael Howard.
:20:40. > :20:44.We had ten years of ago? You mentioned Michael Howard.
:20:45. > :20:49.The truth is that we have seen in the last five years, 17 prisons
:20:50. > :20:52.The truth is that we have seen in Minister talking about the education
:20:53. > :20:57.budget prisoners told they can't go to lessons because there are not
:20:58. > :21:01.enough staff there. What the Prime Minister has said, the rhetoric, it
:21:02. > :21:04.is great but Willie back it up? The failure has happened over the last
:21:05. > :21:10.few years, and I have a positive suggestion. Do you agree with some
:21:11. > :21:14.of these things that David Cameron will say in terms of more autonomy?
:21:15. > :21:20.I am not sure that is the answer. I like the rhetoric but a positive
:21:21. > :21:24.suggestion, rather than Michael Gove reversing things that Chris Grayling
:21:25. > :21:29.did, if you just brought forward the Chris Grayling repeal, that
:21:30. > :21:33.everything Chris Grayling did, I think would be a better place. We
:21:34. > :21:39.haven't mentioned probation, he made a total mess of that stop what you
:21:40. > :21:42.say to that? I don't know the detail, I am sure there were some
:21:43. > :21:45.good things he was doing. One of them were starting this programme of
:21:46. > :21:49.getting rid of the old Victorian prisons and building more than once,
:21:50. > :21:54.I am sure that is a good idea. Let's look at some of the things
:21:55. > :22:00.suggested. Would you agree with more autonomy for prison officers to run
:22:01. > :22:07.the Rome prisons? -- run their own prisons. They need direction and
:22:08. > :22:11.they need somebody to lead how they are going to do it, and the trouble
:22:12. > :22:16.is that for years and years, the Home Office and then the Ministry of
:22:17. > :22:20.Justice have direct did the how, and that is the wrong way round. They
:22:21. > :22:29.have not said what. What I would want to see is two things. Prisons
:22:30. > :22:33.group regionally which is recognised by Lord Woolf after the riots in
:22:34. > :22:38.strange race in 1990 and included in the only white paper on prisons
:22:39. > :22:43.which was published by Kenneth Baker in 1991. -- Strangeways. Prisoners
:22:44. > :22:48.would not then leave their own home area and they would be responsible
:22:49. > :22:52.for their rehabilitation. Secondly, like every school, hospital or
:22:53. > :22:55.business, but somebody responsible and accountable for overseeing what
:22:56. > :23:00.happens to each type of prison and prisoner. Then you can give the
:23:01. > :23:04.governor 's responsibility for doing at the how, knowing that what is
:23:05. > :23:11.overlooked, and they have got somebody to whom they can turn to
:23:12. > :23:17.who is responsible and accountable. Broadly you support those two things
:23:18. > :23:20.but would you support the idea of government proposals to allow
:23:21. > :23:27.prisoners near the end of their sentences out of jail during the
:23:28. > :23:32.week? Certainly. These are sensible proposals, actually. Had he gone
:23:33. > :23:40.soft? The fact of the matter is that we have 85,000... 85,000 400. There
:23:41. > :23:45.were no awards for in car 's rating is much of your population as you
:23:46. > :23:48.can. In America the lock-up ten times as many people. You are five
:23:49. > :23:56.times more likely to be murdered in the USA than here. Said prison does
:23:57. > :24:03.not work? -- so. You one sensible policies to rehabilitate people in
:24:04. > :24:07.society. That could include weekends or early release, particularly with
:24:08. > :24:12.tagging. Is a way of easing overcrowding? People might say that
:24:13. > :24:16.releasing them early letting them out drawing the week, isn't that
:24:17. > :24:23.just to ease overcrowding rather than for some altruistic
:24:24. > :24:27.rehabilitation? It is not only that because some prisoners have been in
:24:28. > :24:30.for a long time and they need to be accustomed to life outside, and that
:24:31. > :24:36.is what the release of temporary licence is designed to do. There
:24:37. > :24:40.will be a lot of conservatives, and voters who think, this is a
:24:41. > :24:44.dangerous precedent to set and it is just to do with overcrowding. You
:24:45. > :24:48.have to get the balance right anyway had my way, I would probably reform
:24:49. > :24:51.things like early release. The assumption that when you get the
:24:52. > :24:58.sentence you only serve no more than half of its. I think that feels very
:24:59. > :25:03.dishonest to the public. I would rather the sentence was near enough
:25:04. > :25:07.what it said on the tin. There were other things to go for but you would
:25:08. > :25:10.have to reform the whole of the sentencing guidelines to get there
:25:11. > :25:13.but I am not against the idea that people should be rehabilitated into
:25:14. > :25:21.society because the rapist problem we have is the inability to
:25:22. > :25:24.readjust. -- the biggest problem. Under Chris Grayling, nothing has
:25:25. > :25:29.been done about rehabilitation. It is not my area of expertise. Where
:25:30. > :25:34.it hasn't worked, look at prisoners who come out of prison and then end
:25:35. > :25:39.up homeless. It is literally a revolving door. I wrote a report on
:25:40. > :25:46.that subject and it has to be a failure of the system. Did Labour
:25:47. > :25:52.lock-up to many people? People who should not be there? I think what is
:25:53. > :25:56.more important is that once people go into prison, have we got a plan,
:25:57. > :25:59.proper resources to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that
:26:00. > :26:04.people come out better people than when they went in but Mark there
:26:05. > :26:08.were some positive moves made under the last government. When this
:26:09. > :26:16.government came in, there was a focus on spending cuts that these
:26:17. > :26:20.aims got forgotten. We up paying the penalty for that now. Argue. --
:26:21. > :26:23.thank you. "Homes for heroes" -
:26:24. > :26:25.originally coined after the first world war in a push for public
:26:26. > :26:27.housing for returning servicemen. Now our guest of the day -
:26:28. > :26:30.Grant Shapps - wants veterans of recent conflicts to be guaranteed
:26:31. > :26:33.homes when they leave the armed 100 years ago, Prime Minister David
:26:34. > :26:36.Lloyd George promised soldiers returning from the battlefields
:26:37. > :26:39.of Europe homes fit for heroes, and this led to
:26:40. > :26:49.the Housing Act 1919. Today when service personnel return
:26:50. > :26:52.from their service they may find themselves with difficulties
:26:53. > :26:54.through personal injury and may be suffering from traumatic stress
:26:55. > :26:56.disorder, or perhaps perfectly well in mind and body, they are still
:26:57. > :26:59.facing an uphill battle for them and their families
:27:00. > :27:05.to find decent homes. I am here in south
:27:06. > :27:07.London at Haig Housing. 270 different properties rented
:27:08. > :27:09.at charitable rates for returning This is exactly the kind
:27:10. > :27:16.of thing that we want to see through the foundation
:27:17. > :27:28.across the country. And this site is designated
:27:29. > :27:39.for new homes for our veterans. We want to see, through
:27:40. > :27:42.the foundation, lots of this around the country in order to make sure
:27:43. > :27:45.that we've got homes fit for heroes That's what I have been working
:27:46. > :27:50.on with my colleague Jake Berry. Tomorrow will see the launch
:27:51. > :27:53.of the Homes For Heroes foundation. We've teamed up with some
:27:54. > :27:55.of our most senior former military generals and officers
:27:56. > :27:57.like Lord Robertson and Lord We'll also be working
:27:58. > :28:00.with charities like Haig Housing, local authorities and developers
:28:01. > :28:03.to make sure we can put an end to the discrimination we have seen
:28:04. > :28:06.against serving and former members of our Armed Forces
:28:07. > :28:10.in the housing market. By 2019 we want to honour that
:28:11. > :28:13.vision of Lloyd George And so these brave men and women
:28:14. > :28:20.who had been out there fighting for our country will have the Homes
:28:21. > :28:22.For Heroes foundation fighting for them and their families to have
:28:23. > :28:39.really great homes to come back to. According to the Royal British
:28:40. > :28:44.Legion, only 1% of veterans identified access to housing is an
:28:45. > :28:48.issue. That issue refuse to homelessness rather than housing. --
:28:49. > :28:51.refers. Rough sleeping. If you look at the figures referring to the
:28:52. > :28:56.number of people who come home and are less likely to own their own
:28:57. > :28:59.home, a third less from the military, if you look at legislation
:29:00. > :29:05.that I introduced by statute guidelines, that means council have
:29:06. > :29:07.to follow it, we discovered in a Freedom Of Information request, that
:29:08. > :29:13.councils are not following it and will be more of that in the launch
:29:14. > :29:16.tomorrow. We found some big problems, not least when people come
:29:17. > :29:21.home and they have been injured, at the most serious end of the scale,
:29:22. > :29:25.they get money for adaptation of housing, but that does not happen in
:29:26. > :29:28.till they leave and that causes a problem because there was a gap
:29:29. > :29:31.between them leaving the service and getting the housing. There are
:29:32. > :29:37.policy improvements on the things we can do better to honour the armed
:29:38. > :29:39.services. The figures, this was about veterans identifying poor
:29:40. > :29:44.housing is an issue, not just homelessness or rough sleeping.
:29:45. > :29:48.Fewer than one in ten had experienced housing difficulties in
:29:49. > :29:53.the past year, with most related to housing or garden maintenance. Are
:29:54. > :30:02.you dealing with a real problem here? We certainly are and if you
:30:03. > :30:07.speak to organisations like Haig or people who look after the armed
:30:08. > :30:10.services, they will tell you there are a whole host of small policy
:30:11. > :30:17.changes that could be made to ensure we have the best housing that is fit
:30:18. > :30:21.for heroes, 100 years after Lloyd George's legislation. What we are
:30:22. > :30:25.going to do is look at international comparisons, find out what other
:30:26. > :30:27.countries are doing, the USA, Australia, Canada, and then try and
:30:28. > :30:38.adopt the best things here. Yeo
:30:39. > :30:39.former servicemen and women when allocating housing. What evidence
:30:40. > :30:47.have allocating housing. What evidence
:30:48. > :30:53.of the councils across the country and found that some are simply not
:30:54. > :30:55.following that. But to say they are biased, as they biased towards other
:30:56. > :30:58.groups? I biased, as they biased towards other
:30:59. > :31:02.biased. I have said the bias which biased, as they biased towards other
:31:03. > :31:07.sometimes prevents people from being biased, as they biased towards other
:31:08. > :31:10.of housing they deserve, needs to end. People have gone out and
:31:11. > :31:15.of housing they deserve, needs to for this country, returned
:31:16. > :31:17.of housing they deserve, needs to own area. One big problem when it
:31:18. > :31:22.comes to housing allocations is when they don't have that local
:31:23. > :31:27.connection. We need to sort that out. There is legislation. It is not
:31:28. > :31:29.working. That is why I'm interested in combating it. I
:31:30. > :31:31.working. That is why I'm interested legislation which I think is not
:31:32. > :31:39.working. Do you have sympathy for legislation which I think is not
:31:40. > :31:43.this campaign? I think the campaign is worthwhile. We have a
:31:44. > :31:45.homelessness crisis in the country. It has got much worse under this
:31:46. > :31:48.government. We are failing on It has got much worse under this
:31:49. > :31:54.health. That then spills over and leads to failure on homelessness,
:31:55. > :32:00.it comes to people coming out of the it comes to people coming out of the
:32:01. > :32:04.recognising an important issue. I am glad to support that.
:32:05. > :32:07.recognising an important issue. I am not like is to be seen as though it
:32:08. > :32:09.is purely about people coming out of the Armed Forces. We have a terrible
:32:10. > :32:16.record, this more generally. On that issue, why
:32:17. > :32:24.would you want to push the idea of them owning or buying their own
:32:25. > :32:28.homes rather than renting? I want to see renting, buying, social housing
:32:29. > :32:33.all the way across. I'm working with George Robertson, former Labour
:32:34. > :32:37.defence secretary, on this. All types of housing. You asked about
:32:38. > :32:41.purchasing housing. types of housing. You asked about
:32:42. > :32:45.served the way for a couple of years and have been working under the
:32:46. > :32:49.British forces Post Office address, your credit rating is not updated in
:32:50. > :32:53.the same way that it would be for you and me. The government has taken
:32:54. > :32:59.steps to try to address that. I have got evidence it is not working yet.
:33:00. > :33:04.The other end of the scale in social housing... It is across the piece.
:33:05. > :33:09.How does that fit with the Government policy to pay to stay in
:33:10. > :33:11.social housing? There has been condemnation that people
:33:12. > :33:20.social housing? There has been priced out of being able to pay rent
:33:21. > :33:25.levels that are above inflation. We can get into the ins and outs of
:33:26. > :33:29.social housing, if you like. One of the things I would say with regard
:33:30. > :33:35.to that is it is important we don't end up with situations where people
:33:36. > :33:38.have gone on to have completely changed life circumstances and have
:33:39. > :33:42.still essentially been able to receive the benefit. Do you think
:33:43. > :33:51.for people over ?40,000 that is a life changing circumstance? I am
:33:52. > :33:57.looking at the proposal very carefully.
:33:58. > :34:00.Now, a logjam in the House of Lords means there's no primary legislation
:34:01. > :34:01.being debated in the Commons this week.
:34:02. > :34:04.But there's plenty else going on as MPs wax their skis
:34:05. > :34:09.Tax credits are back in the news, with Labour pushing for an urgent
:34:10. > :34:11.question this afternoon on why some people could still lose out
:34:12. > :34:14.At a meeting of the PLP tonight, Emily Thornberry,
:34:15. > :34:19.the Shadow Defence Secretary, will update Labour MPs
:34:20. > :34:21.on the progress of her defence review - including the renewal,
:34:22. > :34:28.Unless a deal can be brokered with the Government
:34:29. > :34:32.on a new contract, on Wednesday morning, junior doctors will begin
:34:33. > :34:36.And if it goes ahead, the strike sure to feature
:34:37. > :34:39.at wednesday's PMQs, when David Cameron faces Labour
:34:40. > :34:42.leader Jeremy Corbyn across the despatch box.
:34:43. > :34:47.The NHS will remain in the news when its December figures
:34:48. > :34:51.are published on Thursday morning, with politicians and pundits keeping
:34:52. > :34:59.a close eye on how A waiting times fared in the winter months.
:35:00. > :35:02.in Hamburg for a banquet hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
:35:03. > :35:05.where he is expected to make a speech giving an idea
:35:06. > :35:12.of where the renegotiation plans stand.
:35:13. > :35:15.We're joined now by Jason Beattie of the Mirror and Harry Cole
:35:16. > :35:31.Let's talk about the comments by the Prime Minister about the jungle.
:35:32. > :35:35.Izzy scaremongering voters? If you are on the side of wanting to leave
:35:36. > :35:40.the EU, yes, of course he is scaremongering. There is a real
:35:41. > :35:49.anger today in Cabinet circles that there are those... The Prime
:35:50. > :35:52.Minister promised the in campaign wouldn't be doing any campaigning
:35:53. > :35:58.until the deal is done. Lo and behold he has, crowds today. How
:35:59. > :36:04.long can this internal Cabinet truce last? If the Prime Minister himself
:36:05. > :36:08.is out there all but campaigning for Britain to stay in, planting these
:36:09. > :36:14.stories in the media, you have to expect someone on the outside to
:36:15. > :36:19.start kicking back. Jason Beattie, any word about who may be breaking
:36:20. > :36:27.ranks, or assigns that the line is going to crumble? Michael Gove and
:36:28. > :36:35.Boris Johnson are the two over whom there are question marks. Boris
:36:36. > :36:39.Johnson is sceptical about the deal. Michael Gove, we don't know. The
:36:40. > :36:45.Prime Minister making an announcement on prisons today. Is
:36:46. > :36:53.that a sop to the Justice secretary to try to win him over? What about
:36:54. > :36:57.you Harry, any names? Boris was overheard in the House of Commons
:36:58. > :37:05.telling Bernard Jenkin is that he has never been in favour of being
:37:06. > :37:09.out. My hunch is that Michael Gove is erring towards the ad campaign
:37:10. > :37:16.and will give a currently rudderless and leaderless organisation a very
:37:17. > :37:19.articulate leader. He is not popular in the teaching profession, despite
:37:20. > :37:27.the apparent success of his education reforms, and he is often
:37:28. > :37:31.seen as a bogeyman for the left. Would the benefits outweigh the
:37:32. > :37:35.negatives? That is up to the out campaign. At the moment the ad
:37:36. > :37:41.campaign have not got a figure head, or a big personality, because there
:37:42. > :37:45.are so many at the moment. Do you think Michael Gove would be welcome
:37:46. > :37:50.at the head? They need somebody with some clout. The problem at the
:37:51. > :37:55.moment is the Eurosceptics, the ones we know about, are not particularly
:37:56. > :37:58.appetising or brilliant figures, that and they could do with somebody
:37:59. > :38:02.who has more charm and could reach out better to the large number of
:38:03. > :38:10.undecided voters on this issue. They do look a bit like the mad, bad and
:38:11. > :38:15.weird at the moment. Jason, let's move on to the issue of Trident. Has
:38:16. > :38:25.that decision gone away to some extent? A decisive vote in the House
:38:26. > :38:30.of Commons does not look as though it is on the cards. This has not
:38:31. > :38:40.gone away. I feel almost sorry for Emily Thornberry. She has picked up
:38:41. > :38:44.this poisoned chalice. Jeremy Corbyn, who is against Trident, and
:38:45. > :38:49.a large number of Labour MPs who say this is party policy. They want to
:38:50. > :38:54.keep Trident. The problem you have got here is it is a division right
:38:55. > :39:01.down to the grassroots. There are a lot of Labour members, particularly
:39:02. > :39:05.those in working class seats, and the unions. How Emily Thornberry
:39:06. > :39:12.stitches these sites together, I have no idea. Is this why this
:39:13. > :39:16.decision has been delayed on the Government side because they want to
:39:17. > :39:22.wait to see what Labour doors in the end? I would never be one to suggest
:39:23. > :39:28.the Government would use national so it is a political pawn. But you can
:39:29. > :39:33.see why that impression has been made. Most interestingly on the
:39:34. > :39:38.Labour side, you have the first hint of a possible split. You have MPs
:39:39. > :39:42.like Stephen Kinnock actually saying they would stand on a platform on a
:39:43. > :39:46.pro-strident stance at the next election, even if the official
:39:47. > :39:53.Labour Party policy was to oppose it. Four years outside of an
:39:54. > :39:56.election you have got MPs promising to oppose their own party. It does
:39:57. > :40:01.not look good. Thank you. Toby Perkins, let's
:40:02. > :40:09.continue that. Would you do what Stephen Kinnock said he would do,
:40:10. > :40:12.and stand on April Trident ticket at the next election? I was very
:40:13. > :40:17.pleased with the policy we had going into the last general election. I
:40:18. > :40:20.agreed to serve in the shadow defence team. Emily Beatty and
:40:21. > :40:26.Secretary of State. She said he would go into the review with an
:40:27. > :40:30.open mind. I am, too. Is there something that could change your
:40:31. > :40:37.mind? Well, I don't know about that. I would not say I've heard any
:40:38. > :40:39.evidence that convinces me to go down the unilateral path. Emily has
:40:40. > :40:44.promised to put the evidence together. Hand on heart, is there
:40:45. > :40:51.really is something that could change your mind from your view
:40:52. > :40:54.toward strident? I have always been a believer in multilateral
:40:55. > :41:01.disarmament. I think we have a pretty good track record as a party
:41:02. > :41:04.and a country in terms of leading global multilateral disarmament. We
:41:05. > :41:13.are at an early stage of this review. Emily is gone to separate
:41:14. > :41:22.the basis of that today. There is a chance you could change your mind?
:41:23. > :41:29.It is not inconceivable. I have not heard evidence that would take me
:41:30. > :41:33.down that direction so far. You think Emily Thornberry could come
:41:34. > :41:37.out of this review as somebody who would be in favour of renewing
:41:38. > :41:42.Trident? I think she is listening to all the evidence and she is going
:41:43. > :41:46.into it with an open mind. She is considering the global situation.
:41:47. > :41:50.She will go to Nato and speak to our Nato partners, people from across
:41:51. > :41:54.the party, reaching a conclusion. I do not think it is wise at the start
:41:55. > :41:58.of the review to say, this is what we are going to find at the end of
:41:59. > :42:04.it. Would you be happy to give Labour Party members a more decisive
:42:05. > :42:09.say? I am somebody who over the years has questioned what is the
:42:10. > :42:14.right thing to do? Since I have been in this post I have been over and
:42:15. > :42:20.spoken to colleagues in Nato. I have heard about the extent to which the
:42:21. > :42:22.global community, people committed to multilateral disarmament, their
:42:23. > :42:33.beliefs on what our position should be. And I have to say that so far
:42:34. > :42:39.that evidence... Should they have a veto, or a vote? I don't think so.
:42:40. > :42:43.But ultimately as a party, we go through the national policy Forum,
:42:44. > :42:47.people look at these things in great detail and the party conference gets
:42:48. > :42:52.a vote. That will always be the way we make our policy. That was how we
:42:53. > :42:56.make policy leading up to the last general election. The unions are not
:42:57. > :43:01.unhappy -- not happy about this review. They think it leads to
:43:02. > :43:05.uncertainty and puts jobs at risk, even those who are happy that Jeremy
:43:06. > :43:08.Corbyn is the leader of the party. Do you accept it is dividing the
:43:09. > :43:14.party? Is it the sort of discussion you want to be having no? It is a
:43:15. > :43:18.topic of huge debate. There is a lot of disagreement. It is important
:43:19. > :43:21.that when a new leader comes in, particularly someone like Jeremy,
:43:22. > :43:26.there is an opportunity to debate it. Don't be frightened of the
:43:27. > :43:29.debate. The role of those unions will be important. But they will not
:43:30. > :43:36.let a change in policy happen, will they? I don't know where we will end
:43:37. > :43:41.up. They have gone into it from a position of being strongly of the
:43:42. > :43:44.view that those jobs are important. Why has the decision being delayed?
:43:45. > :43:50.Do you think it is wise of the Government? It was supposed to be
:43:51. > :43:53.March this year but it is not going to happen. I don't think -- I don't
:43:54. > :43:57.have the answer. to happen. I don't think -- I don't
:43:58. > :44:01.that we would want it to go ahead. We have always been pro-Trident.
:44:02. > :44:05.that we would want it to go ahead. saw the rocket launched yesterday
:44:06. > :44:10.that we would want it to go ahead. ability to have long-range ballistic
:44:11. > :44:13.that we would want it to go ahead. missiles, means you should not even
:44:14. > :44:24.countenance the idea of not having Trident. Why not just have the vote
:44:25. > :44:25.no? I would be all in favour. But you are and were part of the
:44:26. > :44:28.Government and you are still you are and were part of the
:44:29. > :44:36.the party. Finally, your constituency party, where are
:44:37. > :44:41.Trident? Just like the Parliamentary party, constituencies are divided.
:44:42. > :44:47.Is yours divided or in favour of renewing Trident? I think they are
:44:48. > :44:49.largely divider. There are 50 members of the Chesterfield Labour
:44:50. > :44:56.Party. There are people on both sides of the argument. I have not
:44:57. > :45:01.done a straw poll. Maybe I should. Were you pleased Ken Livingstone was
:45:02. > :45:02.removed as co-convener of the defence review? I did not lose sleep
:45:03. > :45:07.that night. Now - he was once touted as a future
:45:08. > :45:10.Conservative Leader - So how was our Guest of the Day,
:45:11. > :45:14.Grant Shapps', career Once upon a time in the Westminster
:45:15. > :45:19.bubble you could find the whisper Grant Shapps - young, presentable,
:45:20. > :45:23.climbing the ministerial ladder, Being Conservative co-chairman
:45:24. > :45:28.from 2012 in the build-up to an election that the party
:45:29. > :45:30.wasn't expected to win, but got a working majority,
:45:31. > :45:33.should have been nothing but a plus, and although outside the Eton
:45:34. > :45:40.and Oxbridge circles of the PM, his energy and back story -
:45:41. > :45:42.his cousin is Mick Jones of The Clash - made him a serious
:45:43. > :45:45.contender who could still I like to chill out
:45:46. > :45:49.when I listen to music. Trading in online marketing advice
:45:50. > :45:59.as Michael Green might have made food for satire but
:46:00. > :46:02.it is hardly illegal. It was his stumble over
:46:03. > :46:04.whether he was still doing that To be absolutely clear,
:46:05. > :46:11.I do not have a second job, and I have never had a second
:46:12. > :46:14.job whilst being an MP. The Guardian served up proof
:46:15. > :46:17.otherwise and he had Even this was hardly man
:46:18. > :46:23.overboard stuff but he lost the co-chairmanship of the party
:46:24. > :46:26.after the election in what some saw as a rather an ungrateful move
:46:27. > :46:29.by the PM and although a minister many saw is at a demotion,
:46:30. > :46:32.and then in September last year Elliot Johnson seen
:46:33. > :46:40.here took his own life, claiming he was bullied
:46:41. > :46:47.by Mark Clark, seen here, the organiser of a youth wing
:46:48. > :46:49.election campaign called Road Trip. Grant Shapps had agreed to the idea
:46:50. > :46:53.and to Mr Clark running it but even during the campaign
:46:54. > :46:55.Grant Shapps' aide Paul Abbott - seen here next Lynton Crosby -
:46:56. > :46:57.admitted in e-mails that he was aware of
:46:58. > :46:59.complaints against Mr Clark. More complaints were raised
:47:00. > :47:02.and Mr Shapps decided he must He was not party chairman
:47:03. > :47:14.when the most lurid complaints were made about Mark Clark,
:47:15. > :47:16.nor when Mr Johnson died. He is now sole party chairman,
:47:17. > :47:22.ever closer to David Cameron, and that whisper about leadership
:47:23. > :47:40.and Mr Shapps has evaporated. Grant Shapps, they say all political
:47:41. > :47:44.careers end in failure, your ministerial career ended badly, do
:47:45. > :47:49.you agree? Yes, I stepped down because it was the right thing to
:47:50. > :47:54.do, I did not feel comfortable in a position where I had appointed
:47:55. > :47:58.somebody who turned out, if you believe it, not to be a good thing,
:47:59. > :48:02.and I thought somebody should take responsibility. The old-fashioned
:48:03. > :48:07.right thing to do. If you could go back, what would you have done
:48:08. > :48:13.differently? Not put that particular person in place. Were there signs?
:48:14. > :48:18.There were things that happen, little things, what were they? What
:48:19. > :48:25.rang alarm bells? A lot of complaints were things that were
:48:26. > :48:28.just people not getting on, nothing big, but that is why there is an
:48:29. > :48:32.enquiry going on which I will certainly be interested to see what
:48:33. > :48:37.they come up with full stop what I did not like was it looks like there
:48:38. > :48:40.was a conspiracy or cover-up afterwards, and I did not want be
:48:41. > :48:45.part of that, not for the Johnson family who lost their son, and it
:48:46. > :48:52.did not seem like the right thing to do. For reference, nobody asked me
:48:53. > :48:57.to step down or resign. Nobody wanted me to, probably with the
:48:58. > :49:01.exception of the Johnson is. I did it for them because they had asked.
:49:02. > :49:08.You said, in your resignation letter, I cannot help but think that
:49:09. > :49:13.those who complained should have set alarm bells ringing sooner. There
:49:14. > :49:20.was no smoking gun that somebody set an alarm bell would have rung. May
:49:21. > :49:25.be a shirt, maybe something should have added up and that is why the
:49:26. > :49:28.investigation will be helpful. Either way, forget that, I signed a
:49:29. > :49:34.piece of paper that brought somebody into the campaign. It led to
:49:35. > :49:39.something so serious that it is beyond the things we argue about in
:49:40. > :49:45.this studio, and I thought it was right that somebody said, OK, the
:49:46. > :49:52.rug. With me. You regret bringing him in now with hindsight. It let's
:49:53. > :49:55.to turn of events with a tragic ending and I thought it was the
:49:56. > :50:00.right thing to do and I have no regrets it. The difference between
:50:01. > :50:05.me being in a ministerial career and is not, compared to something that
:50:06. > :50:10.serious, it was trivial. Why be the only person who felt they should
:50:11. > :50:14.resign it is of what happened? I can only answer for myself and can only
:50:15. > :50:20.make my decisions. I have to go to bed and sleep at night and I do not
:50:21. > :50:25.say this to put pressure on others. It is up for everyone to decide what
:50:26. > :50:28.they do. I also thought that the fact I had signed that piece of
:50:29. > :50:34.paper meant I was the appropriate person to step down. Do you think a
:50:35. > :50:43.blind eye was turned to activities going on? Actually, I don't think
:50:44. > :50:46.that was what happened. As a party, they are good at dealing with a
:50:47. > :50:51.council who fell out with a chairman. I don't think we are good
:50:52. > :50:56.at dealing with things that are at this kind of level of seriousness.
:50:57. > :51:00.Actually, the very serious complaints, the 25 complaints, were
:51:01. > :51:04.received last summer and I think they were on their way to be looked
:51:05. > :51:11.at in a more serious way that again this is why a proper enquiry... That
:51:12. > :51:16.is why... That enquiry is ongoing. You don't think this is a proper
:51:17. > :51:24.enquiry? I think it would be helpful if the enquiry was set up in
:51:25. > :51:29.conjunction with the Johnsons. I will speak to them. I hope we learn
:51:30. > :51:33.lessons from it. Look, I don't think the Tories wanted this to happen,
:51:34. > :51:39.obviously, but what processes do you have in place? Where complaints
:51:40. > :51:42.handled? What of care to you have for young people who campaign for
:51:43. > :51:47.the organisation? They are proper questions to answer and I just felt
:51:48. > :51:53.that the right thing to do with step down. -- duty of care. Even though
:51:54. > :51:58.it is not the sort of enquiry would like to have seen, which in a way
:51:59. > :52:04.has lent itself to accusations of cover-up, do you accept that? I did
:52:05. > :52:10.not want to be personally still in place went dumping was not being
:52:11. > :52:18.seen as open as it should have been. -- something. As a result of that,
:52:19. > :52:24.it has become a more arm's-length thing which is the right thing to
:52:25. > :52:30.do. As we have said, so far, you are the only person in a position of 1's
:52:31. > :52:34.ability to face consequences. -- responsibility. When the report
:52:35. > :52:39.comes back, will others consider their position? I don't know out
:52:40. > :52:42.there want to speculate the coroner still has to do report, and then
:52:43. > :52:50.there is the investigation to come back. I think better than taking
:52:51. > :52:54.revenge... It is about accountability and responsibility.
:52:55. > :53:01.Do you think Lord Feldman, the co-chairman at the time and he still
:53:02. > :53:05.is, does he bear responsibility? We can see what the report says but I
:53:06. > :53:09.am not personally piling on the pressure at all. I think it is right
:53:10. > :53:14.to have a process and we will find out what it says. I suspect what has
:53:15. > :53:19.happened here is that we need to have as a party proper processes in
:53:20. > :53:22.place, a duty of care, and learn the lessons, which will be far more
:53:23. > :53:30.valuable than who does and who does not resign from a job. But for the
:53:31. > :53:37.Johnson family, bearing in mind whatever the wares on why force,
:53:38. > :53:40.there was a tragedy. A dreadful tragedy. Should others their
:53:41. > :53:47.response but he directly or indirectly? I am not trying to fudge
:53:48. > :53:50.this because I have stated my responsibility and I think it is
:53:51. > :53:56.right that we learn the lessons and find out how this death came about
:53:57. > :54:00.because there may well be other circumstances which are not related
:54:01. > :54:05.to the particular aspects of what happened in the party. Should the
:54:06. > :54:10.report be published in full? As full as possible. I imagine there are
:54:11. > :54:16.people who give evidence where they may need confident charity. Your
:54:17. > :54:23.evidence? Oh, yes. -- confidentiality. It has been badly
:54:24. > :54:26.handled, hasn't it? I was not happy with the way it was originally
:54:27. > :54:31.handled. The sensible thing would be to have the family in to express
:54:32. > :54:34.condolences directly to them, and secondly, to set up a review which
:54:35. > :54:40.would have been something they could have helped shape. The lesson can be
:54:41. > :54:45.learnt about that for anything in the future. One hopes nothing like
:54:46. > :54:50.this ever happens again. Personally, I did not feel right or comfortable
:54:51. > :54:54.being connected with all of that and that is why I wanted to stand down,
:54:55. > :55:04.to send a strong signal to Mr and Mrs Johnson who I have subsequently
:55:05. > :55:07.spoken to, and I have taken responsibility for this. Something a
:55:08. > :55:10.little different. Typed our own names into Google
:55:11. > :55:14.to see what comes up. These days Google has
:55:15. > :55:15.an 'autocomplete' function which helpfully suggests search
:55:16. > :55:17.terms based on user input. However, while there are plenty
:55:18. > :55:20.of suggested search terms when you put 'labour'
:55:21. > :55:22.into the search engine - not all of them complimentary -
:55:23. > :55:24.there are no similar suggestions It's led to conspiracy theories that
:55:25. > :55:28.Google is censoring its search terms Ellie Price has been
:55:29. > :55:40.searching for answers... at Daily Politics towers, searching
:55:41. > :55:46.for interesting political things. That does involve Google which tries
:55:47. > :55:48.to help us by predicting what we might be searching for,
:55:49. > :55:51.based on what other users This is what happens when you look
:55:52. > :56:00.up the political parties. Except for, mysteriously,
:56:01. > :56:01.the Conservatives where absolutely It has prompted some
:56:02. > :56:15.to wonder whether Google Google insists there
:56:16. > :56:18.is nothing untoward going on, that their predictions are based
:56:19. > :56:20.on a number of factors, including the popularity
:56:21. > :56:22.of certain search terms, but they also point out they can
:56:23. > :56:24.remove inappropriate And even if the searches
:56:25. > :56:45.are predictable, the results Yes, look shocked, both of you. Not
:56:46. > :56:49.as exciting as you think, I can assure you. Do you think the
:56:50. > :56:54.Conservatives are doing a good job at making sure there are only
:56:55. > :56:59.favourable terms for the Internet searchers? There is no basis for
:57:00. > :57:03.that at all. A lot of rubbish gets spoken. I saw a story about the tax
:57:04. > :57:10.bill. I was one of 17 ministers that met with Google but I met with them
:57:11. > :57:12.while I was international development minister, it
:57:13. > :57:16.while I was international an exciting discussion about tax. Do
:57:17. > :57:28.you believe the conspiracy theory? I don't know. It is startling that it
:57:29. > :57:34.should show that. Perhaps you could suggest. How do you do this? There
:57:35. > :57:43.are ways of actually making sure that favourable responses come up
:57:44. > :57:49.when you Google certain things? You type my name and there will be big
:57:50. > :57:54.plenty of less than favourable terms. -- there will be plenty. I
:57:55. > :57:58.don't know whether you can manage this or whether Google can enlighten
:57:59. > :58:01.us. If you go across the Internet you can find a huge amount about the
:58:02. > :58:03.Conservative Party. I don't quite know.
:58:04. > :58:06.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:07. > :58:11.Was it a) an octopus b) a sloth c) a cow or d) a snake?
:58:12. > :58:20.So Grant and Toby: what's the correct answer?
:58:21. > :58:31.I have no idea if it is true that octopus would feel right. There has
:58:32. > :58:37.been a debate... Yes, it is the right answer, it was a guest. Who do
:58:38. > :58:42.you agree with? Margaret Thatcher said we should stay in or out of the
:58:43. > :58:50.EU? I am sure she would have my line. Sit on the fence! Actually, is
:58:51. > :58:55.this going to be a line in the sand or is it another one of the EU
:58:56. > :59:00.things. On that question, we have run out of time stop thank you to
:59:01. > :59:04.both of you for being our guests of the day, goodbye.