08/02/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/02/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics


Downing Street warns that the jungle migrant camp could move to England


if we leave the EU - but are voters being scared


The Prime Minister unveils plans for wholesale reform of prisons


and slams their "scandalous failure" - but after almost six years


in power, who's to blame for that failure?


From party chairman to humble backbencher -


but was Grant Shapps just the fall guy for a scandal


And can political parties stop Google making unhelpful


All that in the next hour on this Chinese New Year's Day.


And with us, as we enter the year of the monkey,


the former Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps -


he was born in a year of the monkey - and the Shadow Defence Minister,


Toby Perkins, who was born in the year of the dog.


First this morning, could the jungle migrant camp move to southern


That's the warning we're told David Cameron will deliver,


as he tries to concentrate minds on the possible national


The migrant camp in Calais known as the jungle is home to several


thousand migrants hoping to reach the UK.


But with UK border guards posted at French ports,


including Calais, working with the support of French police,


they have found it increasingly difficult to cross the channel.


David Cameron's arguing that the agreement with France that


allows British border guards to be posted on the French side


of the channel could be imperilled if we left the EU.


Let's talk to our assistant political editor, James Landale.


James, those commons will raise the temperature on the debate over


whether we remain in the EU are not? They are. They are timed to be part


of that debate. There was a deal in 2003 that the UK and French would


stick border guards on each other's territory. The aim was to deter


asylum seekers from coming to northern France. It has failed. The


French Interior Minister is on record as saying he would like to


change this arrangement. The Prime Minister has spoken before about


this but he is now allowing this to be put out there that he thinks


there is genuinely a risk to this bilateral deal. That is if Britain


were to leave the EU. That is the claim. That is what is being backed


up by ex-British border chiefs on the radio this morning. However,


those campaigning to take Britain out of the European Union say this


is pretty rubbish scaremongering by the Prime Minister. That he has no


evidence this is what the French will do. And actually the cause of


the problem in Calais is that the EU is not good enough at dealing with


immigration issues. It is a hot debate. Is it also part of David


Cameron's recognition that his four baskets are hardly going to set this


debate on fire, or even relates to the voting public, while talking on


big issues like security will? The Prime Minister will say he has


always made the security argument. It was part of his big speech last


autumn at Chatham House, where he made the argument of you leave the


European Union there is a threat to national security, a claim


challenged by the other side. What is really interesting and what is a


risk for him, is that if he is seen to be taking the remaining arguments


down the route of what we now call Project Fear, a bit of jargon that


grew up during the Independence Referendum in Scotland, this idea


that his argument is based on a warning of the negative consequences


if Britain leads the European Union, then there is a risk that the other


side of his argument, namely the positive benefits about Britain


being part of the European Union, that gets washed out. He gets


accused of being a guy who just gets -- who just warns about the


disasters that may happen. The trouble for the main camp is to try


to balance that. -- the remain calm. It is a balance they will struggle


to maintain. We're joined now by


the Conservative MP, Do you share the Prime Minister's


concerns? Has he got a valid point? No. I don't think he has. He is


resorting to panic and scaremongering partly because


Downing Street is in panic mode because it's so-called concessions


are not holding water. The red card has proved to be a washed-up Lottery


ticket, and the emergency brake on immigration has been driven by an EU


backstreet -- back-seat driver. This is a bilateral treaty with France.


Nothing to do with the EU. There is no reason to suppose that such


treaties cannot continue whether we are in or outside the EU. What would


the motivation be for the French? There is nothing in it for them.


What would you say Grant Schapps to the claim that this is panic? I have


no idea if that is true or not. I am not here to answer for them. I have


always been a pretty Eurosceptic MP. I was a Eurosceptic minister. I


hated having papers put in front of me with the option of not being able


to do anything about it because it was decided by Europe. All of the


arguments about Europe are absolutely fair and proper arguments


to have. In the end people will have to decide on the fundamentals of


whether they think this country will be more secure in or out of Europe.


I think that is where the detail of this discussion is going to be


imported. Do you think it will resonate? Is there a likelihood that


if Britain pulls out of the EU, that those migrant camps in Calais would


move to the south of England? It will resonate as an argument in


terms of this being something people feel passionate about. If people


like John Barrymore, do his conclusion, it will strengthen their


side. People who believe in the prime -- Prime Minister's view...


This is the issue today. Security issues are important. Do you believe


the Prime Minister? Is this a real threat? If we pulled out would we


see migrant camps on the south coast? It is another issue you have


to weigh up. Will it sway people one where the other? I suspect the


answer to that is it will sway those where the other? I suspect the


against and those in favour. It is not the issue I will be deciding on.


I will decide whether it is better for the country economically and


politically. You say the facts are this is a bilateral agreement, and


that is true. But I put to you that there is no


that is true. But I put to you that French government to maintain that


bilateral agreement French government to maintain that


to pull out of the EU. There is nothing in it for them. It has not


to pull out of the EU. There is worked for them. At the new Beast so


sure the Prime Minister is wrong? worked for them. At the new Beast so


how can you be so sure? It comes worked for them. At the new Beast so


You can guarantee the sovereignty of your borders.


You can guarantee the sovereignty of your immigration policy. Let France


police your immigration policy. Let France


guarantee the integrity of your borders, that is what this debate is


about, it is about sovereignty. One other point, if I may. We must have


a positive debate. Unfortunately we seem to be in Project Fear at the


moment. An informed debate is a positive debate about the merits of


the ins and outs of Europe. Do you agree with that, Toby Perkins, that


actually negative messages like this are just going to turn people away?


The truth is nobody can tell us what out looks like. That is the greatest


difficulty John has. He says we would take control of our


sovereignty. We would still consider asylum applications if we were


outside of the EU. We will not consider them in Calais but when


people arrive. The problem that the ad campaign has is they cannot tell


us what they are voting for. Hold on a minute, you are confusing the


issue. Asylum and immigration act two separate things. When it comes


to asylum I am sure we will continue to be a tolerant nation. But when it


comes to immigrants and economic migration, if we come out of the EU,


we would restore our sovereignty, restore control of our borders and


we could simply say no, like many other countries do across the world.


Does this needs to be a positive campaign? Look at what happened


during the Scottish referendum campaign. That again was all about


negative messaging that made it difficult in the end for the in


campaign? Ultimately Scotland decided to stay in. If you are


arguing effectively for the status quo, inevitably part of your


argument has to be, would we be worse off if we came out? On a whole


raft of issues, like how we would trade with the rest of the EU and


the rest of the world, if were not part of those negotiations, how we


would police these regulations, the impact of jobs -- on jobs, pensions


etc, if you cannot tell us what it is going to look like if you come


out, why should we believe the Prime Minister would negotiate a better


deal if we were out? If you look at the comments from the Interior


Minister in France, he said the UK could expect countermeasures if it


leaves. He is talking about countermeasures to do with border


control. There you have it, from the horse's mouth. That is a veiled


threat. If you pull out of the EU and you take control of your


borders, you can maintain integrity of your borders. It comes back to


the issue of sovereignty. If you control your borders, you can


maintain the integrity of those borders. You want good neighbourly


relations, you want bilateral agreements. One is not suggesting


you close shop. The bottom line is you can say no. It is as simple as


that. We do not have that ability at the moment because we have a lot of


economic migration putting pressure on public services. Britain can


police France's borders at the moment to stop that issue coming to


Britain. That may be under threat. You cannot say one where other. The


Prime Minister and the French Interior Minister have had the lobby


with the Westminster journalists, and Downing Street says if Britain


votes to pull out of the European Union, thousands could come to the


UK overnight to claim asylum. What do you say to that? Is that not


true? It may be true. We do not know what the numbers are. Those are


claims by people who are trying to play Project Fear a little bit. The


problem is, those asylum seekers, whoever they may be, will be judged


on their individual merits. The bottom line is you would still have


the integrity of your borders. And if these asylum applications do not


pass muster, you could return them. At the moment would you vote to pull


out? I'm waiting for the final agreement. What about now? You're


undecided, clearly. I have always been a Eurosceptic minister. I found


it difficult to be told by Europe what we should be doing. David


Cameron has been repeatedly underestimated for the deals he has


ended up getting in Europe. There are about 100 competencies the UK


pulled out during the last five-year parliament, the first time that has


ever happened. He has shown himself capable of getting these things in


the past. We have not had all 27 countries agree to whatever the


packages. We have not had the detail. To say, would I agree with


the today, is not possible. You could be persuaded either way?


Correct. On that basis, what would persuade you to stay in or vote out?


I think it is the tone of the thing. If this is really a line in the sand


where Europe gets that ever closer union is not for all of its members,


and takes this referendum is being an important turning point in


European destiny, I think it will have justified staying in. If it has


not, then in fact we would be back to where we were in the previous


referendum in 1975. Do you think he will toughen up this deal in the


next few weeks? I don't quite see how. I don't know. It is speculation


on my part. I don't know the answer. That is why I am so keen to see what


happens. According to Lord Pearson,


what animal did Margaret Thatcher An octopus, a slot, a cow or a


snake? The Prime Minister will shortly be


making a speech on prison reform in which he will criticise


the "scandalous failure" of prisons. Describing his plans for the justice


system in England and Wales, he says he believes 'prison reform


should be a great progressive cause David Cameron will announce a pilot


scheme of six new reform prisons, which will be given full autonomy


over how they operate The Prime Minister wants prisoners


to be viewed as "potential assets to be harnessed" rather


than "liabilities to be managed". And he will promise to protect


the ?130 million a year prison education budget and give more


control over education It is also rumoured


that the government may be planning to allow inmates near the end


of their sentences out of jail His speech comes in the wake


of a series of policy U-turns by Justice Secretary Michael Gove,


who took over from Chris Grayling Gove has reversed his predecessor's


plans to overhaul the legal aid system and lifted restrictions


on the number of books He also cancelled a ?5.9 million


contract to train Saudi prison service staff,


and scrapped the criminal courts charge less than a year


after it was introduced. We're joined now by former


Chief Inspector of Prisons, Welcome to the show. David Cameron


is talking today of a scandalous failure of our prisons, who is to


blame for that? Well, it is cumulative because when I started


inspecting 20 years ago, the prison system was in a terrible state, and


I walked out of my first inspection of Holloway where I found that women


were routinely change while in Labour. The seeds of the system were


sown then because when I walked out of Holloway, I went to see the


director-general of the prison service and asked if I could see the


of women's prisons and he said there isn't one and there still is not.


There isn't a director of any type of prison or prisoner except for the


high security prisons, and that was put in after the escapes from


Parkhurst and Whitemoor, under Michael Howard's regime. What did


you think more recently of Michael Gove's predecessor in terms of


dealing with the prison system? I thought he got it all wrong, he


rushed a whole lot of reforms through without making them through,


and he was particularly responsible for the reduction in staff by 33%


which meant that there were not enough people to do anything with


the prisoners. Do you agree? Those figures are pretty startling. The


number of posts which were cut were 1375 when public sector prisons were


closed, and some ?900 million were slashed on the budget. This falls


into the category of a vast range of public services, my interest was in


local councils at the time and what they were doing, and they were doing


things better with fewer people, so I don't know how it has precisely


impacted on things. Well, it has, very adversely. You have to make


decisions when you govern and some of them are tough decisions to make,


and they are not always the things you would like to do. Fortunately,


six years on, you're getting to the point where by the end of this


parliament we will be able to see services which will mean we have


more choices. Was Chris Grayling writes to cut those


more choices. Was Chris Grayling restrict the number of books to


inmates, and to leave prisons which were overflowing?


inmates, and to leave prisons which accurate. Overflowing and crowded,


we were made accurate. Overflowing and crowded,


which enables more places. There are many things which needs to happen.


which enables more places. There are Most obviously, these prisons in


very expensive places Most obviously, these prisons in


a sample which do Most obviously, these prisons in


there, which are big touring in nature, and could be sold to


there, which are big touring in far better modern prison services,


that would make sense in a is Shapps right about overcrowding in prisons


and that that there are enough staff still to look after the number of


prisoners? The grisly overcrowded and the Chief inspector described


them as cases of violence, squalor and idleness which Michael Gove


agreed with. There are not enough staff. 33% cuts means there are not


enough people to do the work with prisoners. Michael Gove has


enough people to do the work with acknowledged that and is trying to


bring back more staff but one of the problems, and Shapps


bring back more staff but one of the the big problems with those is that


no staff the big problems with those is that


prisons where they are working and they have


prisons where they are working and Quite apart from the fact that those


prisons are not really suitable for doing the work that is required in


the 21st-century. Do you think Labour also has questions to ask,


bearing in mind that Lord Ramsbottom said the


bearing in mind that Lord Ramsbottom ago? You mentioned Michael Howard.


We had ten years of ago? You mentioned Michael Howard.


The truth is that we have seen in the last five years, 17 prisons


The truth is that we have seen in Minister talking about the education


budget prisoners told they can't go to lessons because there are not


enough staff there. What the Prime Minister has said, the rhetoric, it


is great but Willie back it up? The failure has happened over the last


few years, and I have a positive suggestion. Do you agree with some


of these things that David Cameron will say in terms of more autonomy?


I am not sure that is the answer. I like the rhetoric but a positive


suggestion, rather than Michael Gove reversing things that Chris Grayling


did, if you just brought forward the Chris Grayling repeal, that


everything Chris Grayling did, I think would be a better place. We


haven't mentioned probation, he made a total mess of that stop what you


say to that? I don't know the detail, I am sure there were some


good things he was doing. One of them were starting this programme of


getting rid of the old Victorian prisons and building more than once,


I am sure that is a good idea. Let's look at some of the things


suggested. Would you agree with more autonomy for prison officers to run


the Rome prisons? -- run their own prisons. They need direction and


they need somebody to lead how they are going to do it, and the trouble


is that for years and years, the Home Office and then the Ministry of


Justice have direct did the how, and that is the wrong way round. They


have not said what. What I would want to see is two things. Prisons


group regionally which is recognised by Lord Woolf after the riots in


strange race in 1990 and included in the only white paper on prisons


which was published by Kenneth Baker in 1991. -- Strangeways. Prisoners


would not then leave their own home area and they would be responsible


for their rehabilitation. Secondly, like every school, hospital or


business, but somebody responsible and accountable for overseeing what


happens to each type of prison and prisoner. Then you can give the


governor 's responsibility for doing at the how, knowing that what is


overlooked, and they have got somebody to whom they can turn to


who is responsible and accountable. Broadly you support those two things


but would you support the idea of government proposals to allow


prisoners near the end of their sentences out of jail during the


week? Certainly. These are sensible proposals, actually. Had he gone


soft? The fact of the matter is that we have 85,000... 85,000 400. There


were no awards for in car 's rating is much of your population as you


can. In America the lock-up ten times as many people. You are five


times more likely to be murdered in the USA than here. Said prison does


not work? -- so. You one sensible policies to rehabilitate people in


society. That could include weekends or early release, particularly with


tagging. Is a way of easing overcrowding? People might say that


releasing them early letting them out drawing the week, isn't that


just to ease overcrowding rather than for some altruistic


rehabilitation? It is not only that because some prisoners have been in


for a long time and they need to be accustomed to life outside, and that


is what the release of temporary licence is designed to do. There


will be a lot of conservatives, and voters who think, this is a


dangerous precedent to set and it is just to do with overcrowding. You


have to get the balance right anyway had my way, I would probably reform


things like early release. The assumption that when you get the


sentence you only serve no more than half of its. I think that feels very


dishonest to the public. I would rather the sentence was near enough


what it said on the tin. There were other things to go for but you would


have to reform the whole of the sentencing guidelines to get there


but I am not against the idea that people should be rehabilitated into


society because the rapist problem we have is the inability to


readjust. -- the biggest problem. Under Chris Grayling, nothing has


been done about rehabilitation. It is not my area of expertise. Where


it hasn't worked, look at prisoners who come out of prison and then end


up homeless. It is literally a revolving door. I wrote a report on


that subject and it has to be a failure of the system. Did Labour


lock-up to many people? People who should not be there? I think what is


more important is that once people go into prison, have we got a plan,


proper resources to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that


people come out better people than when they went in but Mark there


were some positive moves made under the last government. When this


government came in, there was a focus on spending cuts that these


aims got forgotten. We up paying the penalty for that now. Argue. --


thank you. "Homes for heroes" -


originally coined after the first world war in a push for public


housing for returning servicemen. Now our guest of the day -


Grant Shapps - wants veterans of recent conflicts to be guaranteed


homes when they leave the armed 100 years ago, Prime Minister David


Lloyd George promised soldiers returning from the battlefields


of Europe homes fit for heroes, and this led to


the Housing Act 1919. Today when service personnel return


from their service they may find themselves with difficulties


through personal injury and may be suffering from traumatic stress


disorder, or perhaps perfectly well in mind and body, they are still


facing an uphill battle for them and their families


to find decent homes. I am here in south


London at Haig Housing. 270 different properties rented


at charitable rates for returning This is exactly the kind


of thing that we want to see through the foundation


across the country. And this site is designated


for new homes for our veterans. We want to see, through


the foundation, lots of this around the country in order to make sure


that we've got homes fit for heroes That's what I have been working


on with my colleague Jake Berry. Tomorrow will see the launch


of the Homes For Heroes foundation. We've teamed up with some


of our most senior former military generals and officers


like Lord Robertson and Lord We'll also be working


with charities like Haig Housing, local authorities and developers


to make sure we can put an end to the discrimination we have seen


against serving and former members of our Armed Forces


in the housing market. By 2019 we want to honour that


vision of Lloyd George And so these brave men and women


who had been out there fighting for our country will have the Homes


For Heroes foundation fighting for them and their families to have


really great homes to come back to. According to the Royal British


Legion, only 1% of veterans identified access to housing is an


issue. That issue refuse to homelessness rather than housing. --


refers. Rough sleeping. If you look at the figures referring to the


number of people who come home and are less likely to own their own


home, a third less from the military, if you look at legislation


that I introduced by statute guidelines, that means council have


to follow it, we discovered in a Freedom Of Information request, that


councils are not following it and will be more of that in the launch


tomorrow. We found some big problems, not least when people come


home and they have been injured, at the most serious end of the scale,


they get money for adaptation of housing, but that does not happen in


till they leave and that causes a problem because there was a gap


between them leaving the service and getting the housing. There are


policy improvements on the things we can do better to honour the armed


services. The figures, this was about veterans identifying poor


housing is an issue, not just homelessness or rough sleeping.


Fewer than one in ten had experienced housing difficulties in


the past year, with most related to housing or garden maintenance. Are


you dealing with a real problem here? We certainly are and if you


speak to organisations like Haig or people who look after the armed


services, they will tell you there are a whole host of small policy


changes that could be made to ensure we have the best housing that is fit


for heroes, 100 years after Lloyd George's legislation. What we are


going to do is look at international comparisons, find out what other


countries are doing, the USA, Australia, Canada, and then try and


adopt the best things here. Yeo


former servicemen and women when allocating housing. What evidence


have allocating housing. What evidence


of the councils across the country and found that some are simply not


following that. But to say they are biased, as they biased towards other


groups? I biased, as they biased towards other


biased. I have said the bias which biased, as they biased towards other


sometimes prevents people from being biased, as they biased towards other


of housing they deserve, needs to end. People have gone out and


of housing they deserve, needs to for this country, returned


of housing they deserve, needs to own area. One big problem when it


comes to housing allocations is when they don't have that local


connection. We need to sort that out. There is legislation. It is not


working. That is why I'm interested in combating it. I


working. That is why I'm interested legislation which I think is not


working. Do you have sympathy for legislation which I think is not


this campaign? I think the campaign is worthwhile. We have a


homelessness crisis in the country. It has got much worse under this


government. We are failing on It has got much worse under this


health. That then spills over and leads to failure on homelessness,


it comes to people coming out of the it comes to people coming out of the


recognising an important issue. I am glad to support that.


recognising an important issue. I am not like is to be seen as though it


is purely about people coming out of the Armed Forces. We have a terrible


record, this more generally. On that issue, why


would you want to push the idea of them owning or buying their own


homes rather than renting? I want to see renting, buying, social housing


all the way across. I'm working with George Robertson, former Labour


defence secretary, on this. All types of housing. You asked about


purchasing housing. types of housing. You asked about


served the way for a couple of years and have been working under the


British forces Post Office address, your credit rating is not updated in


the same way that it would be for you and me. The government has taken


steps to try to address that. I have got evidence it is not working yet.


The other end of the scale in social housing... It is across the piece.


How does that fit with the Government policy to pay to stay in


social housing? There has been condemnation that people


social housing? There has been priced out of being able to pay rent


levels that are above inflation. We can get into the ins and outs of


social housing, if you like. One of the things I would say with regard


to that is it is important we don't end up with situations where people


have gone on to have completely changed life circumstances and have


still essentially been able to receive the benefit. Do you think


for people over ?40,000 that is a life changing circumstance? I am


looking at the proposal very carefully.


Now, a logjam in the House of Lords means there's no primary legislation


being debated in the Commons this week.


But there's plenty else going on as MPs wax their skis


Tax credits are back in the news, with Labour pushing for an urgent


question this afternoon on why some people could still lose out


At a meeting of the PLP tonight, Emily Thornberry,


the Shadow Defence Secretary, will update Labour MPs


on the progress of her defence review - including the renewal,


Unless a deal can be brokered with the Government


on a new contract, on Wednesday morning, junior doctors will begin


And if it goes ahead, the strike sure to feature


at wednesday's PMQs, when David Cameron faces Labour


leader Jeremy Corbyn across the despatch box.


The NHS will remain in the news when its December figures


are published on Thursday morning, with politicians and pundits keeping


a close eye on how A waiting times fared in the winter months.


in Hamburg for a banquet hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel,


where he is expected to make a speech giving an idea


of where the renegotiation plans stand.


We're joined now by Jason Beattie of the Mirror and Harry Cole


Let's talk about the comments by the Prime Minister about the jungle.


Izzy scaremongering voters? If you are on the side of wanting to leave


the EU, yes, of course he is scaremongering. There is a real


anger today in Cabinet circles that there are those... The Prime


Minister promised the in campaign wouldn't be doing any campaigning


until the deal is done. Lo and behold he has, crowds today. How


long can this internal Cabinet truce last? If the Prime Minister himself


is out there all but campaigning for Britain to stay in, planting these


stories in the media, you have to expect someone on the outside to


start kicking back. Jason Beattie, any word about who may be breaking


ranks, or assigns that the line is going to crumble? Michael Gove and


Boris Johnson are the two over whom there are question marks. Boris


Johnson is sceptical about the deal. Michael Gove, we don't know. The


Prime Minister making an announcement on prisons today. Is


that a sop to the Justice secretary to try to win him over? What about


you Harry, any names? Boris was overheard in the House of Commons


telling Bernard Jenkin is that he has never been in favour of being


out. My hunch is that Michael Gove is erring towards the ad campaign


and will give a currently rudderless and leaderless organisation a very


articulate leader. He is not popular in the teaching profession, despite


the apparent success of his education reforms, and he is often


seen as a bogeyman for the left. Would the benefits outweigh the


negatives? That is up to the out campaign. At the moment the ad


campaign have not got a figure head, or a big personality, because there


are so many at the moment. Do you think Michael Gove would be welcome


at the head? They need somebody with some clout. The problem at the


moment is the Eurosceptics, the ones we know about, are not particularly


appetising or brilliant figures, that and they could do with somebody


who has more charm and could reach out better to the large number of


undecided voters on this issue. They do look a bit like the mad, bad and


weird at the moment. Jason, let's move on to the issue of Trident. Has


that decision gone away to some extent? A decisive vote in the House


of Commons does not look as though it is on the cards. This has not


gone away. I feel almost sorry for Emily Thornberry. She has picked up


this poisoned chalice. Jeremy Corbyn, who is against Trident, and


a large number of Labour MPs who say this is party policy. They want to


keep Trident. The problem you have got here is it is a division right


down to the grassroots. There are a lot of Labour members, particularly


those in working class seats, and the unions. How Emily Thornberry


stitches these sites together, I have no idea. Is this why this


decision has been delayed on the Government side because they want to


wait to see what Labour doors in the end? I would never be one to suggest


the Government would use national so it is a political pawn. But you can


see why that impression has been made. Most interestingly on the


Labour side, you have the first hint of a possible split. You have MPs


like Stephen Kinnock actually saying they would stand on a platform on a


pro-strident stance at the next election, even if the official


Labour Party policy was to oppose it. Four years outside of an


election you have got MPs promising to oppose their own party. It does


not look good. Thank you. Toby Perkins, let's


continue that. Would you do what Stephen Kinnock said he would do,


and stand on April Trident ticket at the next election? I was very


pleased with the policy we had going into the last general election. I


agreed to serve in the shadow defence team. Emily Beatty and


Secretary of State. She said he would go into the review with an


open mind. I am, too. Is there something that could change your


mind? Well, I don't know about that. I would not say I've heard any


evidence that convinces me to go down the unilateral path. Emily has


promised to put the evidence together. Hand on heart, is there


really is something that could change your mind from your view


toward strident? I have always been a believer in multilateral


disarmament. I think we have a pretty good track record as a party


and a country in terms of leading global multilateral disarmament. We


are at an early stage of this review. Emily is gone to separate


the basis of that today. There is a chance you could change your mind?


It is not inconceivable. I have not heard evidence that would take me


down that direction so far. You think Emily Thornberry could come


out of this review as somebody who would be in favour of renewing


Trident? I think she is listening to all the evidence and she is going


into it with an open mind. She is considering the global situation.


She will go to Nato and speak to our Nato partners, people from across


the party, reaching a conclusion. I do not think it is wise at the start


of the review to say, this is what we are going to find at the end of


it. Would you be happy to give Labour Party members a more decisive


say? I am somebody who over the years has questioned what is the


right thing to do? Since I have been in this post I have been over and


spoken to colleagues in Nato. I have heard about the extent to which the


global community, people committed to multilateral disarmament, their


beliefs on what our position should be. And I have to say that so far


that evidence... Should they have a veto, or a vote? I don't think so.


But ultimately as a party, we go through the national policy Forum,


people look at these things in great detail and the party conference gets


a vote. That will always be the way we make our policy. That was how we


make policy leading up to the last general election. The unions are not


unhappy -- not happy about this review. They think it leads to


uncertainty and puts jobs at risk, even those who are happy that Jeremy


Corbyn is the leader of the party. Do you accept it is dividing the


party? Is it the sort of discussion you want to be having no? It is a


topic of huge debate. There is a lot of disagreement. It is important


that when a new leader comes in, particularly someone like Jeremy,


there is an opportunity to debate it. Don't be frightened of the


debate. The role of those unions will be important. But they will not


let a change in policy happen, will they? I don't know where we will end


up. They have gone into it from a position of being strongly of the


view that those jobs are important. Why has the decision being delayed?


Do you think it is wise of the Government? It was supposed to be


March this year but it is not going to happen. I don't think -- I don't


have the answer. to happen. I don't think -- I don't


that we would want it to go ahead. We have always been pro-Trident.


that we would want it to go ahead. saw the rocket launched yesterday


that we would want it to go ahead. ability to have long-range ballistic


that we would want it to go ahead. missiles, means you should not even


countenance the idea of not having Trident. Why not just have the vote


no? I would be all in favour. But you are and were part of the


Government and you are still you are and were part of the


the party. Finally, your constituency party, where are


Trident? Just like the Parliamentary party, constituencies are divided.


Is yours divided or in favour of renewing Trident? I think they are


largely divider. There are 50 members of the Chesterfield Labour


Party. There are people on both sides of the argument. I have not


done a straw poll. Maybe I should. Were you pleased Ken Livingstone was


removed as co-convener of the defence review? I did not lose sleep


that night. Now - he was once touted as a future


Conservative Leader - So how was our Guest of the Day,


Grant Shapps', career Once upon a time in the Westminster


bubble you could find the whisper Grant Shapps - young, presentable,


climbing the ministerial ladder, Being Conservative co-chairman


from 2012 in the build-up to an election that the party


wasn't expected to win, but got a working majority,


should have been nothing but a plus, and although outside the Eton


and Oxbridge circles of the PM, his energy and back story -


his cousin is Mick Jones of The Clash - made him a serious


contender who could still I like to chill out


when I listen to music. Trading in online marketing advice


as Michael Green might have made food for satire but


it is hardly illegal. It was his stumble over


whether he was still doing that To be absolutely clear,


I do not have a second job, and I have never had a second


job whilst being an MP. The Guardian served up proof


otherwise and he had Even this was hardly man


overboard stuff but he lost the co-chairmanship of the party


after the election in what some saw as a rather an ungrateful move


by the PM and although a minister many saw is at a demotion,


and then in September last year Elliot Johnson seen


here took his own life, claiming he was bullied


by Mark Clark, seen here, the organiser of a youth wing


election campaign called Road Trip. Grant Shapps had agreed to the idea


and to Mr Clark running it but even during the campaign


Grant Shapps' aide Paul Abbott - seen here next Lynton Crosby -


admitted in e-mails that he was aware of


complaints against Mr Clark. More complaints were raised


and Mr Shapps decided he must He was not party chairman


when the most lurid complaints were made about Mark Clark,


nor when Mr Johnson died. He is now sole party chairman,


ever closer to David Cameron, and that whisper about leadership


and Mr Shapps has evaporated. Grant Shapps, they say all political


careers end in failure, your ministerial career ended badly, do


you agree? Yes, I stepped down because it was the right thing to


do, I did not feel comfortable in a position where I had appointed


somebody who turned out, if you believe it, not to be a good thing,


and I thought somebody should take responsibility. The old-fashioned


right thing to do. If you could go back, what would you have done


differently? Not put that particular person in place. Were there signs?


There were things that happen, little things, what were they? What


rang alarm bells? A lot of complaints were things that were


just people not getting on, nothing big, but that is why there is an


enquiry going on which I will certainly be interested to see what


they come up with full stop what I did not like was it looks like there


was a conspiracy or cover-up afterwards, and I did not want be


part of that, not for the Johnson family who lost their son, and it


did not seem like the right thing to do. For reference, nobody asked me


to step down or resign. Nobody wanted me to, probably with the


exception of the Johnson is. I did it for them because they had asked.


You said, in your resignation letter, I cannot help but think that


those who complained should have set alarm bells ringing sooner. There


was no smoking gun that somebody set an alarm bell would have rung. May


be a shirt, maybe something should have added up and that is why the


investigation will be helpful. Either way, forget that, I signed a


piece of paper that brought somebody into the campaign. It led to


something so serious that it is beyond the things we argue about in


this studio, and I thought it was right that somebody said, OK, the


rug. With me. You regret bringing him in now with hindsight. It let's


to turn of events with a tragic ending and I thought it was the


right thing to do and I have no regrets it. The difference between


me being in a ministerial career and is not, compared to something that


serious, it was trivial. Why be the only person who felt they should


resign it is of what happened? I can only answer for myself and can only


make my decisions. I have to go to bed and sleep at night and I do not


say this to put pressure on others. It is up for everyone to decide what


they do. I also thought that the fact I had signed that piece of


paper meant I was the appropriate person to step down. Do you think a


blind eye was turned to activities going on? Actually, I don't think


that was what happened. As a party, they are good at dealing with a


council who fell out with a chairman. I don't think we are good


at dealing with things that are at this kind of level of seriousness.


Actually, the very serious complaints, the 25 complaints, were


received last summer and I think they were on their way to be looked


at in a more serious way that again this is why a proper enquiry... That


is why... That enquiry is ongoing. You don't think this is a proper


enquiry? I think it would be helpful if the enquiry was set up in


conjunction with the Johnsons. I will speak to them. I hope we learn


lessons from it. Look, I don't think the Tories wanted this to happen,


obviously, but what processes do you have in place? Where complaints


handled? What of care to you have for young people who campaign for


the organisation? They are proper questions to answer and I just felt


that the right thing to do with step down. -- duty of care. Even though


it is not the sort of enquiry would like to have seen, which in a way


has lent itself to accusations of cover-up, do you accept that? I did


not want to be personally still in place went dumping was not being


seen as open as it should have been. -- something. As a result of that,


it has become a more arm's-length thing which is the right thing to


do. As we have said, so far, you are the only person in a position of 1's


ability to face consequences. -- responsibility. When the report


comes back, will others consider their position? I don't know out


there want to speculate the coroner still has to do report, and then


there is the investigation to come back. I think better than taking


revenge... It is about accountability and responsibility.


Do you think Lord Feldman, the co-chairman at the time and he still


is, does he bear responsibility? We can see what the report says but I


am not personally piling on the pressure at all. I think it is right


to have a process and we will find out what it says. I suspect what has


happened here is that we need to have as a party proper processes in


place, a duty of care, and learn the lessons, which will be far more


valuable than who does and who does not resign from a job. But for the


Johnson family, bearing in mind whatever the wares on why force,


there was a tragedy. A dreadful tragedy. Should others their


response but he directly or indirectly? I am not trying to fudge


this because I have stated my responsibility and I think it is


right that we learn the lessons and find out how this death came about


because there may well be other circumstances which are not related


to the particular aspects of what happened in the party. Should the


report be published in full? As full as possible. I imagine there are


people who give evidence where they may need confident charity. Your


evidence? Oh, yes. -- confidentiality. It has been badly


handled, hasn't it? I was not happy with the way it was originally


handled. The sensible thing would be to have the family in to express


condolences directly to them, and secondly, to set up a review which


would have been something they could have helped shape. The lesson can be


learnt about that for anything in the future. One hopes nothing like


this ever happens again. Personally, I did not feel right or comfortable


being connected with all of that and that is why I wanted to stand down,


to send a strong signal to Mr and Mrs Johnson who I have subsequently


spoken to, and I have taken responsibility for this. Something a


little different. Typed our own names into Google


to see what comes up. These days Google has


an 'autocomplete' function which helpfully suggests search


terms based on user input. However, while there are plenty


of suggested search terms when you put 'labour'


into the search engine - not all of them complimentary -


there are no similar suggestions It's led to conspiracy theories that


Google is censoring its search terms Ellie Price has been


searching for answers... at Daily Politics towers, searching


for interesting political things. That does involve Google which tries


to help us by predicting what we might be searching for,


based on what other users This is what happens when you look


up the political parties. Except for, mysteriously,


the Conservatives where absolutely It has prompted some


to wonder whether Google Google insists there


is nothing untoward going on, that their predictions are based


on a number of factors, including the popularity


of certain search terms, but they also point out they can


remove inappropriate And even if the searches


are predictable, the results Yes, look shocked, both of you. Not


as exciting as you think, I can assure you. Do you think the


Conservatives are doing a good job at making sure there are only


favourable terms for the Internet searchers? There is no basis for


that at all. A lot of rubbish gets spoken. I saw a story about the tax


bill. I was one of 17 ministers that met with Google but I met with them


while I was international development minister, it


while I was international an exciting discussion about tax. Do


you believe the conspiracy theory? I don't know. It is startling that it


should show that. Perhaps you could suggest. How do you do this? There


are ways of actually making sure that favourable responses come up


when you Google certain things? You type my name and there will be big


plenty of less than favourable terms. -- there will be plenty. I


don't know whether you can manage this or whether Google can enlighten


us. If you go across the Internet you can find a huge amount about the


Conservative Party. I don't quite know.


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


Was it a) an octopus b) a sloth c) a cow or d) a snake?


So Grant and Toby: what's the correct answer?


I have no idea if it is true that octopus would feel right. There has


been a debate... Yes, it is the right answer, it was a guest. Who do


you agree with? Margaret Thatcher said we should stay in or out of the


EU? I am sure she would have my line. Sit on the fence! Actually, is


this going to be a line in the sand or is it another one of the EU


things. On that question, we have run out of time stop thank you to


both of you for being our guests of the day, goodbye.


Download Subtitles