:00:32. > :00:34.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:35. > :00:37.A new law setting out the powers of the police and security services
:00:38. > :00:42.But is it a Snooper's Charter or a vital safeguard
:00:43. > :00:47.The man appointed as the Government's terror watchdog
:00:48. > :00:50.questions whether its strategy to prevent radicalisation is working
:00:51. > :00:52.and calls for the Prevent programme to be reviewed -
:00:53. > :01:01.French riot police continue to clear the camp at Calais known
:01:02. > :01:03.as the Jungle as the migrant crisis sparks violence
:01:04. > :01:11.Are we better off in or out of a European Union in crisis?
:01:12. > :01:16.in what's often called a Labour city, we'll look at why the Tories
:01:17. > :01:19.have won it twice and Labour only once.
:01:20. > :01:22.Why doesn't he split the job of Mayor of London?
:01:23. > :01:26.The former Health Secretary can run as his day mayor and the honourable
:01:27. > :01:28.member for Brent East can run as his nightmare!
:01:29. > :01:39.All that in the next hour and joining me for the duration -
:01:40. > :01:43.Tony Blair's night mayor, as William Hague put it there -
:01:44. > :01:45.the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.
:01:46. > :01:50.First this afternoon, the Conservative cabinet might be
:01:51. > :01:52.split on the issue, but there is unanimity
:01:53. > :01:54.in the Shadow Cabinet - Britain should remain
:01:55. > :02:00.But how full-throated is the Labour leader's support for our membership?
:02:01. > :02:03.At the weekend, he attended a CND rally.
:02:04. > :02:06.Critics would have liked him to spend the whole day campaigning
:02:07. > :02:09.on Europe, and last night on ITV's The Agenda
:02:10. > :02:14.he said he was "not on the same side" as the Prime Minister.
:02:15. > :02:17.Can you imagine sharing a stage with David Cameron?
:02:18. > :02:22.You're on the same side of the argument for once.
:02:23. > :02:24.We're not on the same side of the argument.
:02:25. > :02:30.He wants a free-market Europe and has negotiated what he believes
:02:31. > :02:34.to be some kind of deal over welfare and also the "ever-closer union",
:02:35. > :02:38.which apparently is legally questionable,
:02:39. > :02:41.according to Michael Gove. Interesting debate, that.
:02:42. > :02:44.I want to see a Europe that is actually about protecting
:02:45. > :02:49.our environment, about ensuring sustainable industries across Europe
:02:50. > :02:52.- such as the steel industry - and also high levels of jobs
:02:53. > :03:02.and social protection across Europe. His agenda is the very opposite.
:03:03. > :03:07.That was not very helpful, that intervention, because it is a binary
:03:08. > :03:12.choice. You either want to remain or leave. He is on the same side as the
:03:13. > :03:15.Prime Minister? I have said for years that if someone had showed me
:03:16. > :03:19.our economy would do better if we leave, I would vote to leave. No one
:03:20. > :03:23.has come up with that. The double fact is, the insecurity of two years
:03:24. > :03:30.of renegotiating all the treaties, we don't want to do a separate
:03:31. > :03:33.trade. The real problem is that European bureaucracy has become a
:03:34. > :03:38.nightmare. That is appointed Jeremy has been making for years. It is not
:03:39. > :03:44.open accountable and democratic. We want real reform, not the piffle we
:03:45. > :03:47.have had from Cameron. In a way, he is on the same side. If you look at
:03:48. > :03:50.it in terms of the polemic, you either want to stay in or you want
:03:51. > :03:55.to leave, but he couldn't bring himself to say that. We are in
:03:56. > :04:00.favour staying in, but we also want real change. In a sense, what
:04:01. > :04:10.Cameron has come back with is even less effective than what Harold
:04:11. > :04:13.Wilson got 40 years ago. This great block should be done away with and
:04:14. > :04:17.the elected members of Europe should run it. There should effectively be
:04:18. > :04:22.a senate, with each of the 28 member states that having a veto. What
:04:23. > :04:24.about Jeremy Corbyn's standing in the Parliamentary either party? He
:04:25. > :04:30.did finally attend the first meeting this year of MPs, and reports
:04:31. > :04:35.suggest that it didn't go well. Have you spoken to anyone about it? I
:04:36. > :04:39.have heard comments from other Labour MPs. There are a lot of
:04:40. > :04:45.Labour MPs who cannot come to terms with the fact that the British
:04:46. > :04:48.public, at two elections, and the Labour Party membership last summer,
:04:49. > :04:52.have turned their back on the old lair nonsense. Loads of people
:04:53. > :04:55.stopped me on the street in the last election saying, what did the last
:04:56. > :04:59.Labour government informally? It did a lot for the bankers and the elite
:05:00. > :05:03.at the top, but we continue to seek millions of jobs lost in
:05:04. > :05:06.manufacturing. We didn't build homes that people could afford.
:05:07. > :05:12.Effectively, the election of Jeremy was a new start. Then why can't he
:05:13. > :05:17.bring those Labour MPs on board? If it is the case that he is better
:05:18. > :05:24.representing Labour Party members and some Labour voters, why do we
:05:25. > :05:31.have reports of last night's meeting being amateurish, shambolic,
:05:32. > :05:36.painful, patronising? Presumably, Labour MPs still want to win the
:05:37. > :05:40.next election. So I can't imagine that they are this unhappy unless
:05:41. > :05:46.they genuinely feel it with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. With the four
:05:47. > :05:48.elections under Blair and Brown, local Labour parties were not
:05:49. > :05:52.allowed to choose the candidate they wanted, they had to choose from an
:05:53. > :05:57.approved list, and that list exclude any new people coming in who were
:05:58. > :06:00.too left wing or radical, so the Labour Party is completely out of
:06:01. > :06:04.kilter with the membership. They have to come to terms with Jeremy,
:06:05. > :06:07.not the other way round. Do you think it is difficult and
:06:08. > :06:11.frustrating for Labour MPs when they are asked, as they reportedly were
:06:12. > :06:19.last night at the metering of Labour MPs, on how they should stick to the
:06:20. > :06:24.party message coming from -- you are an MP who spent his career
:06:25. > :06:31.rebelling. Then to ask others to be on message will stick in their
:06:32. > :06:38.throats. Jeremy and myself report, and we were right. But you did not
:06:39. > :06:42.stick to the message. Why should Labour MPs be on message now?
:06:43. > :06:47.Because the message Jeremy has got is about rebuilding our economy by
:06:48. > :06:51.investing in infrastructure, increasing research. We have been
:06:52. > :06:55.going low-wage, low skill, low-tech. That is not the future for an
:06:56. > :06:58.advanced capitalist society. You have to be high wage, high skill,
:06:59. > :07:04.high tech. Germany exports five times more than we did China. We
:07:05. > :07:08.have the biggest trade deficit ever. You can't leave it all to the
:07:09. > :07:12.bankers. But has he got the right priorities? If Europe is this
:07:13. > :07:17.critical issue, which many feel it is, why was he at a CND rally not
:07:18. > :07:24.campaigning with Labour on its Europe Day? Jeremy will be
:07:25. > :07:29.campaigning. We have set up our own committee, because we do not want to
:07:30. > :07:33.run behind David Cameron. Alan Johnson is leading that. Jeremy and
:07:34. > :07:37.I will be part of that. So will John McDonnell. We want to stay in Europe
:07:38. > :07:41.because we do not want to see jobs lost and investment reduced. On the
:07:42. > :07:48.jobs, you will have heard the Scottish Secretary saying from the
:07:49. > :07:51.GMB that posers don't know anything about working-class people with jobs
:07:52. > :07:55.in manufacturing and that is why they are campaigning to not renew
:07:56. > :07:58.Trident. John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have a working class
:07:59. > :08:04.background. They had to struggle to get where they are today. They are
:08:05. > :08:07.not part of the elite that went to private school and then straight
:08:08. > :08:10.into Oxbridge. But he said they are out of touch with what people want
:08:11. > :08:15.in those working-class communities. I assume you are talking about
:08:16. > :08:19.Trident. Once you have built the four Trident submarines, what is the
:08:20. > :08:24.next job for those workers? Better to build the ships we need to have a
:08:25. > :08:27.credible Navy. You are not convincing the unions. When it comes
:08:28. > :08:30.to Jeremy Corbyn's popularity, you have said he better represents
:08:31. > :08:36.Labour Party members and some Labour Party voters. If you look at the
:08:37. > :08:40.polls, Labour is still way behind. He could become the first opposition
:08:41. > :08:45.leader since Michael Foot to fail to make gains in the English council
:08:46. > :08:49.elections. He is not in a strong position. His personal poll ratings
:08:50. > :08:54.are worse than Michael Foot. He has had six months of lies and
:08:55. > :09:00.distortions by the media. What lies? Oh, that he is a threat to national
:09:01. > :09:07.security, a terrorist sympathiser. Literally, that skeletal abuse was
:09:08. > :09:09.what I went through at the GLC. But you did win an election and it
:09:10. > :09:15.doesn't look as though Jeremy Corbyn will. Jeremy, like me, is not going
:09:16. > :09:21.to change policies because of the Tory media. Gradually, we will win
:09:22. > :09:29.public support. If Labour loses in May in those elections, or loses
:09:30. > :09:34.council seats, do you think he will be unseated? It is the first test of
:09:35. > :09:36.his leadership. No, the first test of his leadership was the old
:09:37. > :09:43.by-election, where we won the biggest share of the vote in 100
:09:44. > :09:52.years. That was a Labour hinterland. No, people were saying it might be
:09:53. > :09:58.won by Ukip. So you are expecting there to be big gains? We had our
:09:59. > :10:03.best election for 14 years. It will be a struggle. But at the end of the
:10:04. > :10:06.day, we will win an election if we have the right economic policy. We
:10:07. > :10:09.lost last time because we didn't. We have to come up with how you pay for
:10:10. > :10:12.this stuff by cracking have to come up with how you pay for
:10:13. > :10:18.Google and Starbucks and those firms that don't pay their fair share of
:10:19. > :10:22.tax. So you still stick to the line that it was because Labour was not
:10:23. > :10:33.left wing enough, that was why it in 2015? Your economic policies were
:10:34. > :10:37.the reason Labour failed? Back in the 50s and 60s, I can recall that
:10:38. > :10:41.Tory governments did investment as well. Since Thatcher and Blair, we
:10:42. > :10:44.have neglected investment and if the public sector doesn't provide a
:10:45. > :10:48.good, modern transport system, we have pathetic broadband. It is
:10:49. > :10:53.appalling compared with what you have in the Far East. If you put
:10:54. > :10:56.that infrastructure in, firms will invest. We will talk more about the
:10:57. > :10:59.London mayoralty later. which of the following Labour
:11:00. > :11:06.politicians has not grown a beard? Liam Byrne, John McDonnell,
:11:07. > :11:12.Lord Falconer, or Toby Perkins? At the end of the show,
:11:13. > :11:14.Ken Livingstone will give us In the next hour, the Home
:11:15. > :11:20.Secretary, Theresa May, will publish revised plans setting
:11:21. > :11:23.out powers for the police and security agencies in the UK
:11:24. > :11:27.to monitor people's communications The Government says
:11:28. > :11:31.the Investigatory Powers Bill, dubbed the "snoopers'
:11:32. > :11:34.charter" by critics, will include strengthened
:11:35. > :11:37.measures to safeguard privacy - The Investigatory Powers Bill
:11:38. > :11:43.is intended to address gaps and overhaul the laws
:11:44. > :11:49.governing how the state, police and spies can
:11:50. > :11:51.access communications. The Bill requires internet and phone
:11:52. > :11:54.companies to keep a record of websites visited by every
:11:55. > :11:59.citizen for 12 months. It also lays out powers
:12:00. > :12:05.for the security services to perform bulk collection of personal
:12:06. > :12:09.communications and data in order A draft version of the Bill
:12:10. > :12:13.published in November was criticised by three parliamentary
:12:14. > :12:17.committees as "flawed". They were concerned
:12:18. > :12:19.that the proposals lacked clarity Today's Bill will address
:12:20. > :12:25.some of these issues. The Government says it will include
:12:26. > :12:28.stronger controls to "protect
:12:29. > :12:31.freedom of speech and privacy". Ministers want the measures
:12:32. > :12:33.on the statute book by the end
:12:34. > :12:35.of the year - a timetable who say the plans are
:12:36. > :12:41.being rushed through. And we're joined now by backbench
:12:42. > :12:45.Conservative MP David Davis, a long time critic of the extent
:12:46. > :12:58.of the surveillance powers. The government says it has listened
:12:59. > :13:01.to concerns and made the necessary changes and has done what you and
:13:02. > :13:07.others have demanded. Why aren't you satisfied? Well, at the moment, we
:13:08. > :13:14.haven't seen the bill. Perhaps it is appropriately secret at the moment.
:13:15. > :13:17.It is a huge bill, for a start. It has taken about
:13:18. > :13:20.It is a huge bill, for a start. It mechanisms that were previously
:13:21. > :13:23.used, and it will have a whole series of criticisms to meet. I
:13:24. > :13:28.could sit here for hours talking about it, but let's pick one, the
:13:29. > :13:35.intercept approvals by the Home Secretary. She does about 2700 a
:13:36. > :13:42.year on about ten a day. How on earth is that the way for a
:13:43. > :13:45.democracy to control intrusion, bugging someone like Ken
:13:46. > :13:49.Livingstone? But judicial authorisation of warrants, you said
:13:50. > :13:54.that would be nine tenths of the way there when we spoke to you about
:13:55. > :13:58.this. There is going to be judicial authorisation. There will be this
:13:59. > :14:04.ball knock procedure, as they call it, intended to ensure that
:14:05. > :14:08.intercept warrants will have to be signed by a judge -- a double knock
:14:09. > :14:13.procedure. There is a great debate after the very is committed
:14:14. > :14:17.commented about whether or not the check carried out by the judges is
:14:18. > :14:27.anything more than a sort of, is this a ridiculous action. I want the
:14:28. > :14:33.judge to take the time, a security cleared judge who has done this
:14:34. > :14:36.hundreds of time to repair times, and do it properly, not just
:14:37. > :14:40.rubber-stamp the Home Secretary's decision, which is what is
:14:41. > :14:44.happening. Home Secretary first, judge second. Why are you so sure
:14:45. > :14:49.there would not overrule the Home Secretary? Are judges really going
:14:50. > :14:53.to put their credibility on the line and literally took another box?
:14:54. > :14:59.Judges do that all the time, when they either convict or in some great
:15:00. > :15:04.people who go through their courts. -- exoneration. There was a judge
:15:05. > :15:08.who released on bail one person accused of terror is. You could say
:15:09. > :15:12.that was taking a risk, but the guy was exonerated. They take those
:15:13. > :15:21.decisions all the time. That is what judges do. But what sort of
:15:22. > :15:24.guarantees do you want? If they have given you judicial authorisation,
:15:25. > :15:30.you say it is not thorough enough. What evidence do you want?
:15:31. > :15:38.At the moment the judges are just checking for a ridiculous decision.
:15:39. > :15:42.Look at the facts... If they did that it would be different. I would
:15:43. > :15:45.rather have it the other way round, judge first and not the Home
:15:46. > :15:50.Secretary. It would be an improvement. Would it satisfy you do
:15:51. > :15:54.have a judge not just rubber-stamping but checking? I
:15:55. > :16:00.trust the judgment of a judge over the Home Secretary but if we look
:16:01. > :16:03.back over the years, I'm not complaining about bumping me but
:16:04. > :16:09.Harriet Harman, what she threaten action on security? I want more
:16:10. > :16:14.scrutiny of the security services. All she spent her life doing was
:16:15. > :16:20.sailing, we need more women in various places. That is not a threat
:16:21. > :16:23.to national security. The government and those supporting the bill will
:16:24. > :16:28.say in the meantime while this discussion is happening they need to
:16:29. > :16:33.plug the gap in surveillance because lives are at risk. One of the things
:16:34. > :16:37.the Home Secretary herself has said is that this recognises existing
:16:38. > :16:44.powers. Nothing is being held up, this is going on while we sit here.
:16:45. > :16:50.It proves Edward Snowden was telling the truth. We are seeing it now. The
:16:51. > :16:55.government has a mandate to do this, it is in the manifesto and there was
:16:56. > :17:01.support in the Parliamentary party. In the public's eyes, I don't have
:17:02. > :17:04.the statistics but I would suggest that if they are presented with an
:17:05. > :17:11.either or, they will go for more surveillance. This is a 250 plus
:17:12. > :17:16.page bill that will be pushed through the house quickly. There
:17:17. > :17:19.won't be time for even MPs do understand it all, let alone members
:17:20. > :17:23.of the public. If you went out in the street and asked a hundred
:17:24. > :17:31.people, would they even know what it was? What about data collection and
:17:32. > :17:34.the holding of data. It is not going to play ball anyway, so it won't
:17:35. > :17:39.quite be the free for all that you and others are saying. They will
:17:40. > :17:42.have all of this unnecessarily collected data and people will be
:17:43. > :17:46.unhappy about this, why should they be holding vital bits of information
:17:47. > :17:50.as they would see it but actually everyday bits of information to you
:17:51. > :17:55.and me? It is not just about holding data about how they access it. At
:17:56. > :17:59.the moment you get approval from other officials in the same
:18:00. > :18:03.organisation. This is about controlling people's privacy. And
:18:04. > :18:08.controlling access to data, that is a bigger issue than the amount of
:18:09. > :18:11.data being held. The companies themselves will prove difficult,
:18:12. > :18:18.there is a battle going on at the moment between Apple and the FBI and
:18:19. > :18:22.Apple are doing it because of what their customers want. The public are
:18:23. > :18:28.voting with their wallets. With these extra powers have helped to
:18:29. > :18:34.prevent 7/7? Not really, because you can get most people... If something
:18:35. > :18:40.is thrown up there will always be a small number that get through. The
:18:41. > :18:44.Metropolitan Police were doing good surveillance but these four came
:18:45. > :18:47.from outside London and we did not have that data. Increasingly
:18:48. > :18:52.terrorism will be the act of an individual, not someone who is part
:18:53. > :18:59.of a network. If it is a conspiracy, that you can access. A security
:19:00. > :19:07.measure stopping people on our streets or a paedophile, it is about
:19:08. > :19:11.whether it actually works. That is the problem. The number of security
:19:12. > :19:15.specialists think it is detrimental because there is too much
:19:16. > :19:20.information. A targeted approach is better. Most of the examples Theresa
:19:21. > :19:24.May gave when she turned up in front of the joint committee were
:19:25. > :19:31.targeted, not widespread. How critical and issue is this? It's
:19:32. > :19:38.very important. There is another for a new consensus, this is not a left
:19:39. > :19:42.right issue, there are issues about what will actually work and catch
:19:43. > :19:45.terrorists and it can be done. Should Eurosceptic ministers be
:19:46. > :19:54.allowed access to government briefings? Of course they should.
:19:55. > :20:01.The government has a position... The government wishes to remain at the
:20:02. > :20:05.top civil servant... People cannot use the civil service to try to win
:20:06. > :20:08.a general election. Much of the argument is about immigration and
:20:09. > :20:14.welfare and so on and his department is not allowed to tell him about
:20:15. > :20:20.what his job is. It is ridiculous. Do you agree with William Hague that
:20:21. > :20:25.these are irrelevant to voters? It is a very Blairite view, the process
:20:26. > :20:29.does not matter. People will smell something, is it a fair process? If
:20:30. > :20:35.they come to that conclusion they lost believing the government
:20:36. > :20:40.altogether. If the government thinks that is true, why not let people see
:20:41. > :20:43.it? My worry is that they are keeping this away from Iain Duncan
:20:44. > :20:50.Smith because he may be able to demonstrate it is a load of old
:20:51. > :20:55.Tosh. We are staying with the issue of security.
:20:56. > :20:56.The Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation,
:20:57. > :20:59.David Anderson, has told the Daily Politics that there needs
:21:00. > :21:01.of the controversial Prevent programme.
:21:02. > :21:03.Prevent is designed to guard against home grown terrorism,
:21:04. > :21:06.but has been blamed for alienating the communities it is supposed
:21:07. > :21:09.Here's David Anderson's assessment of whether the Government is getting
:21:10. > :21:15.the right balance between civil liberties and security.
:21:16. > :21:19.Stopping the kind of terrorist attacks we saw in London in 2005.
:21:20. > :21:22.Good afternoon to you from Westminster.
:21:23. > :21:26.Central London has been rocked by a series of terrorist attacks...
:21:27. > :21:30.Over a decade on, 7/7 remains the worst terrorist attack ever
:21:31. > :21:38.to take place on mainland Britain, with just two people murdered since.
:21:39. > :21:43.That may suggest that our politicians brought in the necessary
:21:44. > :21:45.laws and powers of surveillance to make Britain a safer place,
:21:46. > :21:48.but we experience credible terrorist attack plots every year.
:21:49. > :21:51.But recently, they have become more frequent and more diverse.
:21:52. > :21:55.The unusual thing about my job is that I'm completely independent
:21:56. > :21:57.of Government, and yet I have unrestricted access to secret
:21:58. > :22:05.It may no longer be enough for ministers to say,
:22:06. > :22:09."If you'd seen what I've seen...", because I've seen it too.
:22:10. > :22:12.If powers are needlessly strict, they can be counter-productive
:22:13. > :22:17.But if they're relaxed too far, they may expose us
:22:18. > :22:20.My predecessor, Alex Carlile, had to respond to a Government
:22:21. > :22:22.which wanted to bring in measures like 90 days'
:22:23. > :22:31.This is an occasion in which it is important that we do
:22:32. > :22:33.what is responsible, what is right and what is necessary
:22:34. > :22:42.There was consistency throughout the time from 2001 until 2010,
:22:43. > :22:45.when there was a Labour government and there was no real change at any
:22:46. > :22:48.time in counterterrorism policy, apart from that that
:22:49. > :22:55.My term of office started with the formation of a coalition
:22:56. > :22:56.government, whose own counterterrorism review was billed
:22:57. > :23:02.as a correction in favour of liberty.
:23:03. > :23:04.This bill is necessary precisely because public safety is enhanced,
:23:05. > :23:06.not diminished, by having appropriate and proportionate
:23:07. > :23:12.Last year, I produced my biggest report to date
:23:13. > :23:18.The law, it seemed to me, was outdated, obscure
:23:19. > :23:19.things that Parliament simply didn't know about,
:23:20. > :23:28.The draft bill that resulted was huge, and it's already been
:23:29. > :23:29.knocked about a bit by Parliamentary committees.
:23:30. > :23:38.It has to be Parliament that decides what powers the agencies should have
:23:39. > :23:40.and what safeguards there should be on those powers.
:23:41. > :23:42.If you let go of that, you can kiss goodbye
:23:43. > :23:56.I also have to look at Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act.
:23:57. > :23:59.That gives police at the ports, airports and international rail
:24:00. > :24:02.terminals the power to stop people, search them, detain them for to six
:24:03. > :24:03.hours and even download their phones.
:24:04. > :24:06.All those things, they can do without the need for suspicion.
:24:07. > :24:08.Schedule 7 is extremely useful to the police.
:24:09. > :24:11.But it's also a significant source of resentment in some quarters.
:24:12. > :24:13.So here at St Pancras, and indeed everywhere else,
:24:14. > :24:16.it's important that the power is applied in a targeted way
:24:17. > :24:30.Muslim communities always want to talk to me about Prevent,
:24:31. > :24:37.to the ideological challenge of terrorism.
:24:38. > :24:42.Most things about Prevent are classified.
:24:43. > :24:45.Some people say the laws are heavy-handed, or they are used,
:24:46. > :24:53.for example by teachers, in a way that unfairly targets
:24:54. > :25:02.interest it is to divide communities rather than unite them.
:25:03. > :25:05.some person or body of people ought to have the power to do for Prevent
:25:06. > :25:09.what I do for the counterterrorism laws.
:25:10. > :25:11.While in Bolton, I also spoke to Yasmin Qureshi about the Prevent
:25:12. > :25:20.It's making communities distrustful of the police and the authorities,
:25:21. > :25:28.If people have views which are at variance with the norm,
:25:29. > :25:32.we need to be able to challenge it, not hide it.
:25:33. > :25:35.The threat has developed significantly because of Isil.
:25:36. > :25:44.We didn't know, for example, when I was involved in developing
:25:45. > :25:55.and to spread terrorism onto a wider stage.
:25:56. > :26:00.Well, if it was, I wouldn't have taken the job.
:26:01. > :26:01.Some of my recommendations are accepted straight
:26:02. > :26:06.Others find their way into judgments of the higher courts.
:26:07. > :26:09.But above all, I try to serve Parliament and its committees
:26:10. > :26:14.by reporting on things that they're not allowed to see.
:26:15. > :26:17.If I can inform the public and political debate on these
:26:18. > :26:21.sensitive issues, then I'm doing my job.
:26:22. > :26:24.And we're joined now by David Anderson,
:26:25. > :26:27.and by Conservative MP Victoria Atkins, a member
:26:28. > :26:31.of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
:26:32. > :26:37.Welcome to both of you. David Anderson, how did you get to be the
:26:38. > :26:43.end independent reviewer? I was tapped on the shoulder by three
:26:44. > :26:46.secret men in raincoats. They pretended they wanted legal advice
:26:47. > :26:52.and in fact they had come to offer me a job. Next time I'm told it will
:26:53. > :26:55.be a public procedure. With application forms and it will be
:26:56. > :27:01.transparent. Is that the right way to go? That is the way we have to
:27:02. > :27:07.go. It sounds like something out of a Cold War spy movie. In terms of
:27:08. > :27:14.the balance between liberty and People's rights and security, do you
:27:15. > :27:19.think the balance is about right? Has it tipped one way because of the
:27:20. > :27:22.threat from Isil? One gauge is talking to communities who are most
:27:23. > :27:28.affected by these laws and seeing what is on their minds. Five years
:27:29. > :27:33.ago I heard a lot about no suspicion stop and search which happened under
:27:34. > :27:37.the terrorism act and schedule seven, the power that the police
:27:38. > :27:41.have, but nowadays I don't hear so much about them. Stop and search
:27:42. > :27:45.power has been removed altogether and schedule seven is not used
:27:46. > :27:50.anywhere near as much and it is used in a more effective and targeted
:27:51. > :27:54.way. I hear about the Prevent agenda. It is supposed to be about
:27:55. > :27:58.making friends and living harmoniously but at the moment it is
:27:59. > :28:04.causing most upset. Why do you think it hasn't worked in terms of
:28:05. > :28:08.creating harmonious community relations? The problem is that it's
:28:09. > :28:16.not transparent and nobody really knows what's going on under Prevent.
:28:17. > :28:22.There are myths about training would the biased about Muslims for
:28:23. > :28:24.example. People say that horrible teachers have overreacted and
:28:25. > :28:29.referred innocent four-year-olds to the police. Some of those stories
:28:30. > :28:33.may be true and others may have been exaggerated but in a sense it is
:28:34. > :28:36.secondary. People are worried and quite frightened and it seems that
:28:37. > :28:40.what you need is somebody independent to come along as I was
:28:41. > :28:44.saying in the film to really look at it and sort out what's going on and
:28:45. > :28:51.how it could be done better. Should it be part of your job? I don't
:28:52. > :28:55.think so, is fine for looking at ministerial discretions and so on
:28:56. > :28:59.but you need a much broader range of expertise, somebody who knows about
:29:00. > :29:03.prisons and schools and people from affecting communities because you
:29:04. > :29:07.have to have trust. When politicians talk about six credible terror
:29:08. > :29:12.threats last year, what do they mean? How serious are they? The
:29:13. > :29:17.first thing is to remind them that in the same year there were 22 is
:29:18. > :29:22.accessible terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. That puts it into
:29:23. > :29:27.context. MI5 will say they have stopped 34 times that many in
:29:28. > :29:30.London. Sadly it is still the case. They are right when they talk about
:29:31. > :29:37.six or seven attempts that were foiled. Nowadays you are looking at
:29:38. > :29:42.quite a range, most of them would be closer to the DIY terrorism which we
:29:43. > :29:46.see now, not just from Islamists but extreme right groups as well. There
:29:47. > :29:50.is now a range from what we saw in other countries, like the marauding
:29:51. > :29:58.attacks in France and targeted attacks on Jews. And on free speech,
:29:59. > :30:02.Charlie Hebdo, and so on. Twice in three months we have seen bombs on
:30:03. > :30:08.airliners, the Somali airliner and the Russian plane that took off from
:30:09. > :30:14.Sharm el-Sheikh. How do we approach terrorism? Is it very different in
:30:15. > :30:16.France compared to here? Is that why we haven't had, thank goodness, a
:30:17. > :30:25.similar style attack in London? We have to be careful about being
:30:26. > :30:29.smug about this, because there were no terrorist attacks in France
:30:30. > :30:33.between 1996 and 2012, and everyone was saying, why don't we do it like
:30:34. > :30:37.the French? But since last November, the French are in a very unhappy
:30:38. > :30:41.place. They have a state of emergency. They are conducting
:30:42. > :30:46.warrantless searches. Large numbers of people are under curfew and house
:30:47. > :30:50.arrest. And so far, we have managed to stick to our ancient principles
:30:51. > :30:54.of policing by consent, which I don't think are alive and well in
:30:55. > :30:58.the same way in Paris. Talking about leadership in other European
:30:59. > :31:02.countries, you recently described the UK as having enjoyed a position
:31:03. > :31:07.of leadership as far as terrorism policy is concerned. Could that be
:31:08. > :31:12.replicated outside the EU? No. It is one of those areas in Europe where
:31:13. > :31:16.we have taken the lead, perhaps because we have been more interested
:31:17. > :31:20.and preoccupied by the subject for longer than most other countries. So
:31:21. > :31:23.if it is a question of aviation security or how you analyse the
:31:24. > :31:30.threat or trying to ensure that people retain the data they need to
:31:31. > :31:33.detect terrace or serious crime, the UK has been making the running in
:31:34. > :31:38.Europe and others who have come behind. But we could still have
:31:39. > :31:43.tools like the European arrest warrant and sharing of databases
:31:44. > :31:45.even if the UK left the EU. That is likely, although let's not forget
:31:46. > :31:50.that the director of Europol said that that would be more costly and
:31:51. > :31:53.certainly less effective. The broader point is that we would need
:31:54. > :31:57.to take what we were given. That might be good and useful, but you
:31:58. > :32:03.could say it is not as good or as useful as designing the policies
:32:04. > :32:08.that the whole continent adopts. Let's pick up some of the comments
:32:09. > :32:13.on Prevent. Do you agree with David Anderson that there should be an
:32:14. > :32:16.independence grew junior of Prevent? It is something the home affairs
:32:17. > :32:20.select committee is looking at at the moment. We must be careful not
:32:21. > :32:24.to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think it is a great thing
:32:25. > :32:31.that we have a programme to reach out to young people to help parents,
:32:32. > :32:36.when they are worried about their children. One of the common
:32:37. > :32:42.misconceptions about Channel is that it comes in for criticism because of
:32:43. > :32:45.various stories that have emerged. But actually, Channel is a voluntary
:32:46. > :32:50.service and a young person can only be referred to it with the parent's
:32:51. > :32:53.consent. But the issue raised by David Anderson is one of
:32:54. > :32:57.transparency. If we don't know what Prevent is doing or how successful
:32:58. > :33:04.it has been or what his agenda is, how can it be judged? Well, there
:33:05. > :33:09.are many voices that are very noisy at the moment about Prevent. Think
:33:10. > :33:13.sometimes, we have heard from some of those voices in the home affairs
:33:14. > :33:17.select committee in our work looking at this, and some of those voices
:33:18. > :33:22.crowd out the work going on on the ground. For example, more than 285
:33:23. > :33:32.mosques are working with the Prevent scheme, 800 schools and colleges,
:33:33. > :33:36.100 faith groups. I understand that we perhaps need to sell it better,
:33:37. > :33:40.not just two communities directly affected by Prevent, but the whole
:33:41. > :33:45.of the country. But we mustn't stop talking to these children and young
:33:46. > :33:48.people, because what is the alternative? One of the complaints
:33:49. > :33:51.from a member of the Muslim community that came onto the
:33:52. > :33:54.programme said that they felt they were outside the Prevent strategy
:33:55. > :34:02.and were not part of the discussions about how to deal with the
:34:03. > :34:06.communities. Well, this is a long term project. Where criticisms are
:34:07. > :34:11.being voiced, we should take those on board. But Prevent is about
:34:12. > :34:18.safeguarding our young people, and we must bear that in mind. Is it fit
:34:19. > :34:25.for purpose, Prevent? I don't think so. After the 7/7 bombings, the
:34:26. > :34:29.police did not stop a single attack on a Muslim. In the last few years,
:34:30. > :34:33.there has been a huge increase in Islamophobic incidents. And it is
:34:34. > :34:38.not just Muslim terrorists. We have a lot of far right individuals,
:34:39. > :34:44.bringing in arms by post from abroad. But all you hearing the
:34:45. > :34:48.media is Muslim, Muslim, Muslim, and it is alienating people. Prevent is
:34:49. > :34:54.also about preventing youngsters from going on a very dark path. In
:34:55. > :34:59.that sense, it has failed, because we hear reports all the time. But we
:35:00. > :35:03.only hear when has not worked, we don't hear about the success
:35:04. > :35:06.stories. Are you saying there would have been more people going to Syria
:35:07. > :35:10.to fight for Isil if not for Prevent? We have heard from
:35:11. > :35:16.witnesses who consider it to be a very useful tool in helping direct
:35:17. > :35:20.young people away from negative influences, sometimes on the
:35:21. > :35:26.computer in their bedroom or their iPad. We have to tackle this. We
:35:27. > :35:31.can't just criticise it. Victoria is right, there is an Prevent shaped
:35:32. > :35:34.space. Ibrahim Anderson, my namesake was committed a few weeks ago for
:35:35. > :35:37.soliciting members for Isis, it came out during his trial that he had
:35:38. > :35:40.been photographing his six-year-old and eight-year-old sons in front of
:35:41. > :35:44.the black flag, holding swords and pointing at heaven. One would hope
:35:45. > :35:48.that any responsible schoolteacher might at least have half an eye open
:35:49. > :35:52.for that sort of thing. The problem with Prevent is that it has become a
:35:53. > :35:56.sort of lightning conductor for a lot of dissatisfaction. And one of
:35:57. > :35:59.the reasons for that, I'm afraid, is that a lot of Muslims in this
:36:00. > :36:05.country do not feel engaged with. They feel the government is talking
:36:06. > :36:11.to a limited range of people, and if they are going to solve things
:36:12. > :36:19.together against the men of violence at the outer edges, you have to talk
:36:20. > :36:23.to people. Let's talk briefly about the Investigatory Powers Bill. Does
:36:24. > :36:27.that have your support now? It has been revised, according to the
:36:28. > :36:30.government. We just heard from David Davis that he feels it's not going
:36:31. > :36:34.far enough in terms of judicial oversight. There is one good thing
:36:35. > :36:40.about the Investigatory Powers Bill, which makes it the much unique in
:36:41. > :36:43.the world, and that is that all the powers that the agencies and the
:36:44. > :36:48.police have and aspire to our set out clearly, in a way that can be
:36:49. > :36:51.debated democratically in Parliament. That is incredibly
:36:52. > :36:55.unusual in the world, and it was brave even to attempt it. It was my
:36:56. > :36:59.recommendation that we should, and I think it has been done triumphantly.
:37:00. > :37:04.There are a lot of details to argue about. The bill is not the finished
:37:05. > :37:07.article, but that is what Parliament is full. Parliament needs to decide
:37:08. > :37:11.whether we are prepared for people to keep a record of our internet
:37:12. > :37:14.browsing history, and if not, Parliament will also decide
:37:15. > :37:17.browsing history, and if not, will not become part of the
:37:18. > :37:21.Now - riot police are supporting demolition teams as they continue
:37:22. > :37:24.to dismantle shelters in the Calais migrant camp known as the Jungle.
:37:25. > :37:26.This follows scenes of violence overnight,
:37:27. > :37:28.with police firing tear gas as migrants hurled stones.
:37:29. > :37:32.the migrants must move to shipping containers on another part
:37:33. > :37:37.They don't want to be registered as asylum seekers in France,
:37:38. > :37:46.and are instead desperate to travel to Britain.
:37:47. > :37:54.Our correspondent is in Calais. What is going on behind you? As far as
:37:55. > :37:57.many of the migrants are concerned, this place represents their best
:37:58. > :38:05.chances of making it across the Channel to the UK. Today, things are
:38:06. > :38:11.moving fast. Yesterday, all of this was tense and wooden homes. Last
:38:12. > :38:15.night, we were here as the police through these tear gas canisters
:38:16. > :38:19.into the camp to try to clear the protesters, people trying to repel
:38:20. > :38:25.the demolition workers. Now they are progressing through
:38:26. > :38:27.the demolition workers. Now they are speed. The authorities said
:38:28. > :38:30.bulldozers would not be used and that they would use a softly-softly
:38:31. > :38:34.approach. That is not what we have been witnessing in the Jungle. So
:38:35. > :38:39.the riot police came in first this morning to clear the way. You can
:38:40. > :38:41.see that there are still some migrants on site, but most have
:38:42. > :38:47.moved from the southern section towards the north. Many have gone
:38:48. > :38:55.elsewhere already. They have gone to another camp with even worse
:38:56. > :39:02.conditions in nearby Dunkerque. What has their response been? And what
:39:03. > :39:06.about those still there? I was speaking to one man an hour or so
:39:07. > :39:11.ago. He came from Sudan. He said that he feared for his life. He said
:39:12. > :39:14.he had fled this kind of thing in his own country and he did not
:39:15. > :39:19.expect to find it in Europe. He said he tried to cross the Channel 20
:39:20. > :39:24.times since he has been here. He has tried on trains and lorries, like so
:39:25. > :39:28.many. That is one of the reasons they are trying to clear this
:39:29. > :39:33.Jungle. They are trying to demolish it to act as a deterrent, to
:39:34. > :39:43.dissuade others from following this well trodden path. They are also
:39:44. > :39:48.trying to stop people from risking their lives, because they believe
:39:49. > :39:51.that if they come here, they have a chance of getting to the UK. So they
:39:52. > :39:56.are trying to push them elsewhere. The question on the minds of so many
:39:57. > :39:59.is, where will they go now if there is no room at Dunkerque, which we
:40:00. > :40:02.have been told by the migrants is run mostly by violent people
:40:03. > :40:04.smugglers? Where will they go next? I'm joined now in the studio
:40:05. > :40:16.by Ukip's spokeswoman on home Is it your belief that if we weren't
:40:17. > :40:21.in the EU, we wouldn't be seeing these scenes in Calais? Yes, I
:40:22. > :40:27.believe it is. Why? Well, the draw for these migrants is an economic
:40:28. > :40:33.future in the United Kingdom. They have gone all the way across Europe.
:40:34. > :40:36.They have got in either via Lesbos, the Mediterranean roots, or the
:40:37. > :40:41.Balkan route. They have then either been trafficked or made their own
:40:42. > :40:44.way all the way to Calais and Dunkerque, and they are there
:40:45. > :40:48.because they see an economic future in the UK. What difference would it
:40:49. > :40:53.make if we were not in the EU in terms of migrants trying to get over
:40:54. > :40:57.to the UK? I am not following your point. If we were out of the EU,
:40:58. > :41:01.migrants would still want to come to Britain. Why would it be more
:41:02. > :41:06.difficult for them if we were outside the EU? What I do have hoped
:41:07. > :41:09.would have happened by now is that those individuals, instead of
:41:10. > :41:15.risking their lives, would apply by legal means to come to the United
:41:16. > :41:19.Kingdom. And if are out of the European Union, they then clearly
:41:20. > :41:23.would not be able to get as far as they could in terms of the Channel
:41:24. > :41:28.ports. Do you agree with that assessment? I think that if we leave
:41:29. > :41:31.Europe, it will make no difference. These people have trekked all the
:41:32. > :41:34.way across Europe because they want to come to Britain, because Britain
:41:35. > :41:38.is seen as the best of the European countries to bring your kids up in
:41:39. > :41:44.and it is the most open and delete intolerant about Muslims. -- the
:41:45. > :41:51.least intolerant about Muslims. And we are largely responsible for this.
:41:52. > :41:54.The Americans wanted to overthrow Assad and Gaddafi, and they did get
:41:55. > :42:01.rid of Saddam Hussein. It has been catastrophic. Frankly, it is worse
:42:02. > :42:05.off now if you are a Libyan, Iraqi or Syria than it was before. Our
:42:06. > :42:10.interventions have been a disaster. That is the foreign policy argument
:42:11. > :42:13.as you see it for the cause of the wave of migration. Are you convinced
:42:14. > :42:19.that it wouldn't change it if Britain pulls out of the EU? You
:42:20. > :42:22.think these scenes will carry on? It could get worse, because there will
:42:23. > :42:26.be a lot of people in European governments saying, why should we do
:42:27. > :42:31.anything for Britain? Well, I obviously disagree. They have got to
:42:32. > :42:36.Calais on the basis that they have managed to breach the European
:42:37. > :42:41.frontiers. The Schengen system allows them to then get as far as
:42:42. > :42:49.they did. Possibly the only area where we might agree, let's take
:42:50. > :42:53.that out of the equation. The issue is that they get into Europe and
:42:54. > :42:56.they then get as far as they do on the basis that there is no border
:42:57. > :43:00.control. There is no passport control. But they would still be
:43:01. > :43:07.able to do that, even if we have left. We are not disagreeing. So it
:43:08. > :43:11.will not really change the situation. We are not part of
:43:12. > :43:15.Schengen anyway. As you say, many of these migrants are wanting to just
:43:16. > :43:19.get to Britain to live and work. They are not interested in the rest
:43:20. > :43:24.of Europe. And that would not change. No, but there is this cohort
:43:25. > :43:29.that are so focused on getting to the UK that they are prepared to put
:43:30. > :43:33.themselves at that degree of risk. Thousands of individuals are
:43:34. > :43:37.arriving either on the Macedonian border or on the Greek islands, and
:43:38. > :43:42.we have no idea what proportion of those are still prepared to take the
:43:43. > :43:47.next level of risk and get all the way to Calais and Dunkerque. But it
:43:48. > :43:49.hasn't affected the UK. These are desperate scenes on mainland Europe,
:43:50. > :43:53.but in terms of the numbers of people that have made it to Britain
:43:54. > :43:57.as a result of the migrant crisis and have actually been accepted
:43:58. > :44:04.either as asylum seekers and refugees, hasn't really changed
:44:05. > :44:08.since this has erupted. Firstly, your questions ought to be directed
:44:09. > :44:13.at the county council, that is having to look after children and
:44:14. > :44:17.home some of these people -- Kent County Council. You also ought to
:44:18. > :44:20.talk to Kent Police, who have to manage these individuals when they
:44:21. > :44:24.jump out of the two service stations from lorries they have hidden in.
:44:25. > :44:27.You also have to talk to somebody like the head of Eurostar and
:44:28. > :44:31.Eurotunnel, who has seen a begin pack on their business on the basis
:44:32. > :44:35.that trains are being stopped -- it has had a begin pack. But the
:44:36. > :44:42.figures do not back that up. There were 25,000 asylum application from
:44:43. > :44:46.a applicants in the year ending June 2000 15. Only 2000 of those were
:44:47. > :44:51.from Syria. The number of applications remains low relative to
:44:52. > :44:55.the number of applications in 2002. Your issue is with asylum seekers.
:44:56. > :45:00.We are not talking about them, we are talking about individuals who
:45:01. > :45:03.are a number of European heads of state have said are economic
:45:04. > :45:06.migrants. We have had interviews and we have seen press coverage and we
:45:07. > :45:10.have heard individuals talking about the reason they want to get to the
:45:11. > :45:13.UK being nothing to do with asylum. They are going because they believe
:45:14. > :45:18.they can get a job, a better standard of living or they are
:45:19. > :45:22.entitled to benefits. But would you agree that if we were not part of
:45:23. > :45:28.the EU, would have less influence on discussions to do with the migrant
:45:29. > :45:33.crisis? Not at all. We have an opt out of the Schengen agreement. We
:45:34. > :45:38.are signed up to the UN Convention on asylum processing and management.
:45:39. > :45:43.So in terms of our role in or out of the European Union, I would rather
:45:44. > :45:53.go with those two issues, rather than follow something the EU is
:45:54. > :45:57.trying to manufacture. Will it be part of your campaign? Migration and
:45:58. > :46:02.lack of border control, yes, of course that is an important point
:46:03. > :46:09.here. It is, the lack of border control... The migrant crisis... It
:46:10. > :46:15.is about the uncontrolled migration to the United Kingdom. Germany has
:46:16. > :46:19.been criticised and also praised for the decision and the announcement by
:46:20. > :46:27.Angela Merkel to say, Syrian refugees are welcome here. Do you
:46:28. > :46:31.think as the migrant crisis unfolds and the pressure on countries like
:46:32. > :46:36.Italy, Greece and Macedonia, that it was the wrong thing to say? No,
:46:37. > :46:41.Greece and Macedonia cannot cope, there has to be a Europe-wide
:46:42. > :46:46.response and each country has to take their fair share of genuine
:46:47. > :46:53.asylum seekers. The worries that you have is that anyone in the other 27
:46:54. > :46:57.European countries is free to come here. Asylum seekers represent an
:46:58. > :47:03.minute part of migration coming to Britain. Most of it is legal and
:47:04. > :47:08.from the rest of Europe. In the case of Macedonia is it right that they
:47:09. > :47:12.have taken a hard line? They describe 400 men trying to break
:47:13. > :47:17.through before they had been registered. Is that the right way to
:47:18. > :47:22.go? I think it is, Macedonia happens to be one of seven Schengen members
:47:23. > :47:31.that has temporarily, I will put that in quotes, reintroduced border
:47:32. > :47:35.control. The Schengen agreement was effectively a passport to allow
:47:36. > :47:42.extremism and terrorism to the passport free right across Europe.
:47:43. > :47:46.You have the head of an organisation such as that, an organisation with a
:47:47. > :47:52.huge amount of authority, making that statement, what Macedonia has
:47:53. > :47:57.done is spot on. Even using tear gas to control crowds? Fire that small
:47:58. > :48:01.children? I don't know the exact details. On the basis of what you
:48:02. > :48:04.have said, if they have used tear gas, maybe they
:48:05. > :48:07.have said, if they have used tear option. I don't agree. You don't
:48:08. > :48:09.think tear gas should be used. The complaint is that large groups have
:48:10. > :48:15.been pending for so long that complaint is that large groups have
:48:16. > :48:24.frustration is now overflowing and erupting, so they tried to push
:48:25. > :48:29.through. What do you say to that? This awful anarchist organisation
:48:30. > :48:30.called No Borders, currently creating trouble in Calais, has not
:48:31. > :48:36.made it to Macedonia. Quite frankly creating trouble in Calais, has not
:48:37. > :48:40.the mayhem they have caused over the past few months in Calais for
:48:41. > :48:46.example, if they were to replicate that in Macedonia or Lesbos,
:48:47. > :48:50.goodness knows. It's a shameful reflection on the UK. Would you open
:48:51. > :48:53.the doors and would you like to see the government welcoming large
:48:54. > :48:57.numbers of migrants in the way Angela Merkel has done in Germany?
:48:58. > :49:00.There is a real problem that the pressure we have got on
:49:01. > :49:03.There is a real problem that the homes, unless the government is
:49:04. > :49:08.prepared to create more jobs and homes it will be hugely contentious.
:49:09. > :49:14.You don't think it's a good idea? These asylum seekers have taken our
:49:15. > :49:19.jobs and homes... The truth is that Labour and Tory governments haven't
:49:20. > :49:26.created enough. Would you now say, let's take in 20,000, 30,000, 40,000
:49:27. > :49:32.Syrian migrants or Iraqis but Mark I come from Brent and when we have a
:49:33. > :49:35.crisis in 72 when Ugandans were kicked out of their country, the
:49:36. > :49:39.Edward Heath government asked councils like Brent to take 10000
:49:40. > :49:48.and they gave financial support to build homes. -- or Iraqis? If people
:49:49. > :49:52.are coming you have to plan and build homes and make sure more jobs
:49:53. > :49:56.will be created. That is the problem, we have a system as was
:49:57. > :50:01.shown last week with the statistics, we can't control our borders so we
:50:02. > :50:05.can't control the numbers coming in and plan accordingly. No responsible
:50:06. > :50:10.government should be constantly looking backwards and saying, hold
:50:11. > :50:11.on, our policy will be catching up. That is currently what the situation
:50:12. > :50:15.is. Now - our Guest of the Day,
:50:16. > :50:18.Ken Livingstone, is perhaps best It's often said that the capital
:50:19. > :50:23.is a Labour city - the party has most of the city's MPs
:50:24. > :50:26.and assembly members - but it's actually only
:50:27. > :50:28.won the mayoralty once, Ken standing as an independent
:50:29. > :50:32.in the first contest in 2000. and exciting innovation
:50:33. > :50:55.for Londoners. If there's a big turnout
:50:56. > :50:57.and there is a yes vote, He wanted to be Labour's candidate.
:50:58. > :51:22.banked on was this man, and pushed his then Health Secretary
:51:23. > :51:24.Frank Dobson instead. Why doesn't he split the job
:51:25. > :51:29.of Mayor for London? The former Health Secretary can run
:51:30. > :51:32.as his day mayor and the honourable
:51:33. > :51:33.member for Brent East He's thinking
:51:34. > :51:41.about it, I can tell! So when Ken Livingstone wasn't
:51:42. > :51:50.selected as Labour's candidate, He lost the Labour whip,
:51:51. > :51:57.but he won the election. As I was saying before
:51:58. > :52:00.I was so rudely interrupted Incidentally, the campaign hadn't
:52:01. > :52:04.been great fun Their original candidate,
:52:05. > :52:10.one Jeffrey Archer, had rather unceremoniously bowed out
:52:11. > :52:12.following those perjury charges. He was replaced by Steve Norris,
:52:13. > :52:18.who decided to run again in 2004. By that time, Ken
:52:19. > :52:20.Livingstone had been welcomed back I always said Ken would
:52:21. > :52:27.make a great mayor. But fast forward four years,
:52:28. > :52:42.and a new Tory kid on the block. It was a hard-fought
:52:43. > :52:44.campaign, And as for Ken, Mayor Livingstone,
:52:45. > :52:48.I can tell you that your courage with which you stuck it
:52:49. > :52:52.to your enemies, especially in New Labour,
:52:53. > :52:55.you have thereby earned the thanks and admiration of millions
:52:56. > :52:58.of Londoners, even if you may think
:52:59. > :53:00.that they have a funny way Boris "hung on" four years later,
:53:01. > :53:15.once again beating Ken Livingstone So in 16 years, London has
:53:16. > :53:19.had just two mayors. Come May, there will
:53:20. > :53:25.have to be a third. is a former Conservative mayoral
:53:26. > :53:34.candidate who faced Ken Livingstone twice -
:53:35. > :53:36.in 2000 and 20004. Welcome to the programme,
:53:37. > :53:46.Steve Norris. Is London a Labour City? You look at
:53:47. > :53:49.the number of seats and the way they performed at local elections
:53:50. > :53:53.recently, it is a Labour City? If you look at the difference between
:53:54. > :54:00.what Labour got in the general election and in London it is quite
:54:01. > :54:08.striking, 31% nationally and over 40% in London. Ken is the great
:54:09. > :54:13.election Guru in London. To assume that the mayoralty will always be a
:54:14. > :54:17.Labour fiefdom could be very dangerous. Boris Johnson is still
:54:18. > :54:28.until he steps down the mayor, but has it gone so far now that there is
:54:29. > :54:35.an inevitability that the City is on course to pick a Labour candidate?
:54:36. > :54:39.No, it is a battle between inner and outer London and I didn't get it out
:54:40. > :54:43.well enough in the first election, lots of people said, we don't
:54:44. > :54:48.particularly like the idea, it is another layer of bureaucracy. We did
:54:49. > :54:53.better in the second term. The margin closed between me and Ken and
:54:54. > :54:58.Boris got more out and you can have a Tory in London and I don't see any
:54:59. > :55:01.reason to disbelieve that. Labour is actually now a London party,
:55:02. > :55:07.everything seems to be focused there in terms of the Shadow Cabinet
:55:08. > :55:11.positions, the leader of the party, Shadow Chancellor, it is just a
:55:12. > :55:17.London party. Not really. The simple fact is that whereas 40 years ago
:55:18. > :55:21.people always voted the same way, they never changed, people will
:55:22. > :55:25.change their mind on the way to the polling station, it has become
:55:26. > :55:33.celebrity politics and I loathe that. I like boring old arguments. I
:55:34. > :55:39.hated all of that. I came into politics to do things. You were
:55:40. > :55:44.still seen as a character? Margaret Thatcher created that by depleting
:55:45. > :55:48.me as a threat to national security. You fought two campaigns, what
:55:49. > :55:51.advice would you give to Zac Goldsmith? To actually get on and
:55:52. > :55:58.make sure the outer ring boats for you because if you look at Boris's
:55:59. > :56:06.performance, he won by 60,000 plus. Because he had broader appeal. A big
:56:07. > :56:12.turnout in Bromley. If you get the vote out in Bromley, Bexley, Croydon
:56:13. > :56:17.for the Conservatives, you win, and if you fail to do that, you don't.
:56:18. > :56:21.You once told a journalist that the more you got to know Ken, the less
:56:22. > :56:25.you liked him. I was quoting Neil Kinnock. Everybody likes Ken
:56:26. > :56:33.Livingstone apart from the people who know him! I was quoting other
:56:34. > :56:40.politicians, as it happens, I won't name them. Do you still support
:56:41. > :56:44.Sadiq Khan? Absolutely, like me he wants to do things and he is really
:56:45. > :56:51.focused on detail, a very effective minister. There is already quite a
:56:52. > :56:55.lot of Islamophobia in Standard. I think as well it will be a
:56:56. > :56:59.significant breakthrough if London shows that in a western country and
:57:00. > :57:03.Muslim can be elected in a senior position, that will be reassuring to
:57:04. > :57:08.a lot of Muslims who don't feel they are part of the country. Have things
:57:09. > :57:12.gone sour between you? A recent editorial in the Evening Standard
:57:13. > :57:19.encouraged Londoners to vote for Jeremy Corbyn's vision of a better
:57:20. > :57:22.City. Sadiq Khan gave an interview to the Jewish Chronicle in which he
:57:23. > :57:29.said, I won't be another Ken Livingstone. Me and Boris should
:57:30. > :57:33.keep out of this and we should focus on the two candidates we have got.
:57:34. > :57:37.You could not have a more striking contrast. Ordinary London guy whose
:57:38. > :57:44.dad was a bus driver against one of the bridges people in Britain. Will
:57:45. > :57:48.you go for his seat in tooting? I am a retired pensioner! You were
:57:49. > :57:55.involved in convening the defence review. That brought you back from
:57:56. > :58:00.retirement. It is quite interesting. We can discuss Trident! We can do
:58:01. > :58:03.that on another occasion. Will it be dirty? Sadiq Khan is getting
:58:04. > :58:09.oversensitive about this business. About being Muslim. Zac Goldsmith
:58:10. > :58:16.said he was a radical and he complained bitterly, saying that he
:58:17. > :58:21.was a smear, but Sadiq Khan described himself as radical. These
:58:22. > :58:25.things will play, this is a big prize with serious candidates. As
:58:26. > :58:28.far as I'm concerned the result is still in the balance. It is nice to
:58:29. > :58:29.bring sparring partners back together.
:58:30. > :58:33.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:34. > :58:35.The question was which of the following Labour politicians
:58:36. > :58:39.Liam Byrne, John McDonnell, Lord Falconer, or Toby Perkins?
:58:40. > :58:49.Who hasn't grown a beard? My guess would be Toby Perkins. It is your
:58:50. > :58:54.friend John McDonnell Viktoria Gunes have you not noticed? It is just
:58:55. > :58:56.that he forgot to shave. -- it is your friend John McDonnell!
:58:57. > :59:01.The One o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:59:02. > :59:02.I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow with Andrew
:59:03. > :59:07.We are told that OJ Simpson IS in that car,
:59:08. > :59:16.Do you think he did it? She was terrified of him.
:59:17. > :59:20.Give me the gun. I want him to finish this day alive.