08/02/2016 Daily Politics

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.