01/03/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/03/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


A new law setting out the powers of the police and security services


But is it a Snooper's Charter or a vital safeguard


The man appointed as the Government's terror watchdog


questions whether its strategy to prevent radicalisation is working


and calls for the Prevent programme to be reviewed -


French riot police continue to clear the camp at Calais known


as the Jungle as the migrant crisis sparks violence


Are we better off in or out of a European Union in crisis?


in what's often called a Labour city, we'll look at why the Tories


have won it twice and Labour only once.


Why doesn't he split the job of Mayor of London?


The former Health Secretary can run as his day mayor and the honourable


member for Brent East can run as his nightmare!


All that in the next hour and joining me for the duration -


Tony Blair's night mayor, as William Hague put it there -


the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone.


First this afternoon, the Conservative cabinet might be


split on the issue, but there is unanimity


in the Shadow Cabinet - Britain should remain


But how full-throated is the Labour leader's support for our membership?


At the weekend, he attended a CND rally.


Critics would have liked him to spend the whole day campaigning


on Europe, and last night on ITV's The Agenda


he said he was "not on the same side" as the Prime Minister.


Can you imagine sharing a stage with David Cameron?


You're on the same side of the argument for once.


We're not on the same side of the argument.


He wants a free-market Europe and has negotiated what he believes


to be some kind of deal over welfare and also the "ever-closer union",


which apparently is legally questionable,


according to Michael Gove. Interesting debate, that.


I want to see a Europe that is actually about protecting


our environment, about ensuring sustainable industries across Europe


- such as the steel industry - and also high levels of jobs


and social protection across Europe. His agenda is the very opposite.


That was not very helpful, that intervention, because it is a binary


choice. You either want to remain or leave. He is on the same side as the


Prime Minister? I have said for years that if someone had showed me


our economy would do better if we leave, I would vote to leave. No one


has come up with that. The double fact is, the insecurity of two years


of renegotiating all the treaties, we don't want to do a separate


trade. The real problem is that European bureaucracy has become a


nightmare. That is appointed Jeremy has been making for years. It is not


open accountable and democratic. We want real reform, not the piffle we


have had from Cameron. In a way, he is on the same side. If you look at


it in terms of the polemic, you either want to stay in or you want


to leave, but he couldn't bring himself to say that. We are in


favour staying in, but we also want real change. In a sense, what


Cameron has come back with is even less effective than what Harold


Wilson got 40 years ago. This great block should be done away with and


the elected members of Europe should run it. There should effectively be


a senate, with each of the 28 member states that having a veto. What


about Jeremy Corbyn's standing in the Parliamentary either party? He


did finally attend the first meeting this year of MPs, and reports


suggest that it didn't go well. Have you spoken to anyone about it? I


have heard comments from other Labour MPs. There are a lot of


Labour MPs who cannot come to terms with the fact that the British


public, at two elections, and the Labour Party membership last summer,


have turned their back on the old lair nonsense. Loads of people


stopped me on the street in the last election saying, what did the last


Labour government informally? It did a lot for the bankers and the elite


at the top, but we continue to seek millions of jobs lost in


manufacturing. We didn't build homes that people could afford.


Effectively, the election of Jeremy was a new start. Then why can't he


bring those Labour MPs on board? If it is the case that he is better


representing Labour Party members and some Labour voters, why do we


have reports of last night's meeting being amateurish, shambolic,


painful, patronising? Presumably, Labour MPs still want to win the


next election. So I can't imagine that they are this unhappy unless


they genuinely feel it with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. With the four


elections under Blair and Brown, local Labour parties were not


allowed to choose the candidate they wanted, they had to choose from an


approved list, and that list exclude any new people coming in who were


too left wing or radical, so the Labour Party is completely out of


kilter with the membership. They have to come to terms with Jeremy,


not the other way round. Do you think it is difficult and


frustrating for Labour MPs when they are asked, as they reportedly were


last night at the metering of Labour MPs, on how they should stick to the


party message coming from -- you are an MP who spent his career


rebelling. Then to ask others to be on message will stick in their


throats. Jeremy and myself report, and we were right. But you did not


stick to the message. Why should Labour MPs be on message now?


Because the message Jeremy has got is about rebuilding our economy by


investing in infrastructure, increasing research. We have been


going low-wage, low skill, low-tech. That is not the future for an


advanced capitalist society. You have to be high wage, high skill,


high tech. Germany exports five times more than we did China. We


have the biggest trade deficit ever. You can't leave it all to the


bankers. But has he got the right priorities? If Europe is this


critical issue, which many feel it is, why was he at a CND rally not


campaigning with Labour on its Europe Day? Jeremy will be


campaigning. We have set up our own committee, because we do not want to


run behind David Cameron. Alan Johnson is leading that. Jeremy and


I will be part of that. So will John McDonnell. We want to stay in Europe


because we do not want to see jobs lost and investment reduced. On the


jobs, you will have heard the Scottish Secretary saying from the


GMB that posers don't know anything about working-class people with jobs


in manufacturing and that is why they are campaigning to not renew


Trident. John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn have a working class


background. They had to struggle to get where they are today. They are


not part of the elite that went to private school and then straight


into Oxbridge. But he said they are out of touch with what people want


in those working-class communities. I assume you are talking about


Trident. Once you have built the four Trident submarines, what is the


next job for those workers? Better to build the ships we need to have a


credible Navy. You are not convincing the unions. When it comes


to Jeremy Corbyn's popularity, you have said he better represents


Labour Party members and some Labour Party voters. If you look at the


polls, Labour is still way behind. He could become the first opposition


leader since Michael Foot to fail to make gains in the English council


elections. He is not in a strong position. His personal poll ratings


are worse than Michael Foot. He has had six months of lies and


distortions by the media. What lies? Oh, that he is a threat to national


security, a terrorist sympathiser. Literally, that skeletal abuse was


what I went through at the GLC. But you did win an election and it


doesn't look as though Jeremy Corbyn will. Jeremy, like me, is not going


to change policies because of the Tory media. Gradually, we will win


public support. If Labour loses in May in those elections, or loses


council seats, do you think he will be unseated? It is the first test of


his leadership. No, the first test of his leadership was the old


by-election, where we won the biggest share of the vote in 100


years. That was a Labour hinterland. No, people were saying it might be


won by Ukip. So you are expecting there to be big gains? We had our


best election for 14 years. It will be a struggle. But at the end of the


day, we will win an election if we have the right economic policy. We


lost last time because we didn't. We have to come up with how you pay for


this stuff by cracking have to come up with how you pay for


Google and Starbucks and those firms that don't pay their fair share of


tax. So you still stick to the line that it was because Labour was not


left wing enough, that was why it in 2015? Your economic policies were


the reason Labour failed? Back in the 50s and 60s, I can recall that


Tory governments did investment as well. Since Thatcher and Blair, we


have neglected investment and if the public sector doesn't provide a


good, modern transport system, we have pathetic broadband. It is


appalling compared with what you have in the Far East. If you put


that infrastructure in, firms will invest. We will talk more about the


London mayoralty later. which of the following Labour


politicians has not grown a beard? Liam Byrne, John McDonnell,


Lord Falconer, or Toby Perkins? At the end of the show,


Ken Livingstone will give us In the next hour, the Home


Secretary, Theresa May, will publish revised plans setting


out powers for the police and security agencies in the UK


to monitor people's communications The Government says


the Investigatory Powers Bill, dubbed the "snoopers'


charter" by critics, will include strengthened


measures to safeguard privacy - The Investigatory Powers Bill


is intended to address gaps and overhaul the laws


governing how the state, police and spies can


access communications. The Bill requires internet and phone


companies to keep a record of websites visited by every


citizen for 12 months. It also lays out powers


for the security services to perform bulk collection of personal


communications and data in order A draft version of the Bill


published in November was criticised by three parliamentary


committees as "flawed". They were concerned


that the proposals lacked clarity Today's Bill will address


some of these issues. The Government says it will include


stronger controls to "protect


freedom of speech and privacy". Ministers want the measures


on the statute book by the end


of the year - a timetable who say the plans are


being rushed through. And we're joined now by backbench


Conservative MP David Davis, a long time critic of the extent


of the surveillance powers. The government says it has listened


to concerns and made the necessary changes and has done what you and


others have demanded. Why aren't you satisfied? Well, at the moment, we


haven't seen the bill. Perhaps it is appropriately secret at the moment.


It is a huge bill, for a start. It has taken about


It is a huge bill, for a start. It mechanisms that were previously


used, and it will have a whole series of criticisms to meet. I


could sit here for hours talking about it, but let's pick one, the


intercept approvals by the Home Secretary. She does about 2700 a


year on about ten a day. How on earth is that the way for a


democracy to control intrusion, bugging someone like Ken


Livingstone? But judicial authorisation of warrants, you said


that would be nine tenths of the way there when we spoke to you about


this. There is going to be judicial authorisation. There will be this


ball knock procedure, as they call it, intended to ensure that


intercept warrants will have to be signed by a judge -- a double knock


procedure. There is a great debate after the very is committed


commented about whether or not the check carried out by the judges is


anything more than a sort of, is this a ridiculous action. I want the


judge to take the time, a security cleared judge who has done this


hundreds of time to repair times, and do it properly, not just


rubber-stamp the Home Secretary's decision, which is what is


happening. Home Secretary first, judge second. Why are you so sure


there would not overrule the Home Secretary? Are judges really going


to put their credibility on the line and literally took another box?


Judges do that all the time, when they either convict or in some great


people who go through their courts. -- exoneration. There was a judge


who released on bail one person accused of terror is. You could say


that was taking a risk, but the guy was exonerated. They take those


decisions all the time. That is what judges do. But what sort of


guarantees do you want? If they have given you judicial authorisation,


you say it is not thorough enough. What evidence do you want?


At the moment the judges are just checking for a ridiculous decision.


Look at the facts... If they did that it would be different. I would


rather have it the other way round, judge first and not the Home


Secretary. It would be an improvement. Would it satisfy you do


have a judge not just rubber-stamping but checking? I


trust the judgment of a judge over the Home Secretary but if we look


back over the years, I'm not complaining about bumping me but


Harriet Harman, what she threaten action on security? I want more


scrutiny of the security services. All she spent her life doing was


sailing, we need more women in various places. That is not a threat


to national security. The government and those supporting the bill will


say in the meantime while this discussion is happening they need to


plug the gap in surveillance because lives are at risk. One of the things


the Home Secretary herself has said is that this recognises existing


powers. Nothing is being held up, this is going on while we sit here.


It proves Edward Snowden was telling the truth. We are seeing it now. The


government has a mandate to do this, it is in the manifesto and there was


support in the Parliamentary party. In the public's eyes, I don't have


the statistics but I would suggest that if they are presented with an


either or, they will go for more surveillance. This is a 250 plus


page bill that will be pushed through the house quickly. There


won't be time for even MPs do understand it all, let alone members


of the public. If you went out in the street and asked a hundred


people, would they even know what it was? What about data collection and


the holding of data. It is not going to play ball anyway, so it won't


quite be the free for all that you and others are saying. They will


have all of this unnecessarily collected data and people will be


unhappy about this, why should they be holding vital bits of information


as they would see it but actually everyday bits of information to you


and me? It is not just about holding data about how they access it. At


the moment you get approval from other officials in the same


organisation. This is about controlling people's privacy. And


controlling access to data, that is a bigger issue than the amount of


data being held. The companies themselves will prove difficult,


there is a battle going on at the moment between Apple and the FBI and


Apple are doing it because of what their customers want. The public are


voting with their wallets. With these extra powers have helped to


prevent 7/7? Not really, because you can get most people... If something


is thrown up there will always be a small number that get through. The


Metropolitan Police were doing good surveillance but these four came


from outside London and we did not have that data. Increasingly


terrorism will be the act of an individual, not someone who is part


of a network. If it is a conspiracy, that you can access. A security


measure stopping people on our streets or a paedophile, it is about


whether it actually works. That is the problem. The number of security


specialists think it is detrimental because there is too much


information. A targeted approach is better. Most of the examples Theresa


May gave when she turned up in front of the joint committee were


targeted, not widespread. How critical and issue is this? It's


very important. There is another for a new consensus, this is not a left


right issue, there are issues about what will actually work and catch


terrorists and it can be done. Should Eurosceptic ministers be


allowed access to government briefings? Of course they should.


The government has a position... The government wishes to remain at the


top civil servant... People cannot use the civil service to try to win


a general election. Much of the argument is about immigration and


welfare and so on and his department is not allowed to tell him about


what his job is. It is ridiculous. Do you agree with William Hague that


these are irrelevant to voters? It is a very Blairite view, the process


does not matter. People will smell something, is it a fair process? If


they come to that conclusion they lost believing the government


altogether. If the government thinks that is true, why not let people see


it? My worry is that they are keeping this away from Iain Duncan


Smith because he may be able to demonstrate it is a load of old


Tosh. We are staying with the issue of security.


The Government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation,


David Anderson, has told the Daily Politics that there needs


of the controversial Prevent programme.


Prevent is designed to guard against home grown terrorism,


but has been blamed for alienating the communities it is supposed


Here's David Anderson's assessment of whether the Government is getting


the right balance between civil liberties and security.


Stopping the kind of terrorist attacks we saw in London in 2005.


Good afternoon to you from Westminster.


Central London has been rocked by a series of terrorist attacks...


Over a decade on, 7/7 remains the worst terrorist attack ever


to take place on mainland Britain, with just two people murdered since.


That may suggest that our politicians brought in the necessary


laws and powers of surveillance to make Britain a safer place,


but we experience credible terrorist attack plots every year.


But recently, they have become more frequent and more diverse.


The unusual thing about my job is that I'm completely independent


of Government, and yet I have unrestricted access to secret


It may no longer be enough for ministers to say,


"If you'd seen what I've seen...", because I've seen it too.


If powers are needlessly strict, they can be counter-productive


But if they're relaxed too far, they may expose us


My predecessor, Alex Carlile, had to respond to a Government


which wanted to bring in measures like 90 days'


This is an occasion in which it is important that we do


what is responsible, what is right and what is necessary


There was consistency throughout the time from 2001 until 2010,


when there was a Labour government and there was no real change at any


time in counterterrorism policy, apart from that that


My term of office started with the formation of a coalition


government, whose own counterterrorism review was billed


as a correction in favour of liberty.


This bill is necessary precisely because public safety is enhanced,


not diminished, by having appropriate and proportionate


Last year, I produced my biggest report to date


The law, it seemed to me, was outdated, obscure


things that Parliament simply didn't know about,


The draft bill that resulted was huge, and it's already been


knocked about a bit by Parliamentary committees.


It has to be Parliament that decides what powers the agencies should have


and what safeguards there should be on those powers.


If you let go of that, you can kiss goodbye


I also have to look at Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act.


That gives police at the ports, airports and international rail


terminals the power to stop people, search them, detain them for to six


hours and even download their phones.


All those things, they can do without the need for suspicion.


Schedule 7 is extremely useful to the police.


But it's also a significant source of resentment in some quarters.


So here at St Pancras, and indeed everywhere else,


it's important that the power is applied in a targeted way


Muslim communities always want to talk to me about Prevent,


to the ideological challenge of terrorism.


Most things about Prevent are classified.


Some people say the laws are heavy-handed, or they are used,


for example by teachers, in a way that unfairly targets


interest it is to divide communities rather than unite them.


some person or body of people ought to have the power to do for Prevent


what I do for the counterterrorism laws.


While in Bolton, I also spoke to Yasmin Qureshi about the Prevent


It's making communities distrustful of the police and the authorities,


If people have views which are at variance with the norm,


we need to be able to challenge it, not hide it.


The threat has developed significantly because of Isil.


We didn't know, for example, when I was involved in developing


and to spread terrorism onto a wider stage.


Well, if it was, I wouldn't have taken the job.


Some of my recommendations are accepted straight


Others find their way into judgments of the higher courts.


But above all, I try to serve Parliament and its committees


by reporting on things that they're not allowed to see.


If I can inform the public and political debate on these


sensitive issues, then I'm doing my job.


And we're joined now by David Anderson,


and by Conservative MP Victoria Atkins, a member


of the Home Affairs Select Committee.


Welcome to both of you. David Anderson, how did you get to be the


end independent reviewer? I was tapped on the shoulder by three


secret men in raincoats. They pretended they wanted legal advice


and in fact they had come to offer me a job. Next time I'm told it will


be a public procedure. With application forms and it will be


transparent. Is that the right way to go? That is the way we have to


go. It sounds like something out of a Cold War spy movie. In terms of


the balance between liberty and People's rights and security, do you


think the balance is about right? Has it tipped one way because of the


threat from Isil? One gauge is talking to communities who are most


affected by these laws and seeing what is on their minds. Five years


ago I heard a lot about no suspicion stop and search which happened under


the terrorism act and schedule seven, the power that the police


have, but nowadays I don't hear so much about them. Stop and search


power has been removed altogether and schedule seven is not used


anywhere near as much and it is used in a more effective and targeted


way. I hear about the Prevent agenda. It is supposed to be about


making friends and living harmoniously but at the moment it is


causing most upset. Why do you think it hasn't worked in terms of


creating harmonious community relations? The problem is that it's


not transparent and nobody really knows what's going on under Prevent.


There are myths about training would the biased about Muslims for


example. People say that horrible teachers have overreacted and


referred innocent four-year-olds to the police. Some of those stories


may be true and others may have been exaggerated but in a sense it is


secondary. People are worried and quite frightened and it seems that


what you need is somebody independent to come along as I was


saying in the film to really look at it and sort out what's going on and


how it could be done better. Should it be part of your job? I don't


think so, is fine for looking at ministerial discretions and so on


but you need a much broader range of expertise, somebody who knows about


prisons and schools and people from affecting communities because you


have to have trust. When politicians talk about six credible terror


threats last year, what do they mean? How serious are they? The


first thing is to remind them that in the same year there were 22 is


accessible terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. That puts it into


context. MI5 will say they have stopped 34 times that many in


London. Sadly it is still the case. They are right when they talk about


six or seven attempts that were foiled. Nowadays you are looking at


quite a range, most of them would be closer to the DIY terrorism which we


see now, not just from Islamists but extreme right groups as well. There


is now a range from what we saw in other countries, like the marauding


attacks in France and targeted attacks on Jews. And on free speech,


Charlie Hebdo, and so on. Twice in three months we have seen bombs on


airliners, the Somali airliner and the Russian plane that took off from


Sharm el-Sheikh. How do we approach terrorism? Is it very different in


France compared to here? Is that why we haven't had, thank goodness, a


similar style attack in London? We have to be careful about being


smug about this, because there were no terrorist attacks in France


between 1996 and 2012, and everyone was saying, why don't we do it like


the French? But since last November, the French are in a very unhappy


place. They have a state of emergency. They are conducting


warrantless searches. Large numbers of people are under curfew and house


arrest. And so far, we have managed to stick to our ancient principles


of policing by consent, which I don't think are alive and well in


the same way in Paris. Talking about leadership in other European


countries, you recently described the UK as having enjoyed a position


of leadership as far as terrorism policy is concerned. Could that be


replicated outside the EU? No. It is one of those areas in Europe where


we have taken the lead, perhaps because we have been more interested


and preoccupied by the subject for longer than most other countries. So


if it is a question of aviation security or how you analyse the


threat or trying to ensure that people retain the data they need to


detect terrace or serious crime, the UK has been making the running in


Europe and others who have come behind. But we could still have


tools like the European arrest warrant and sharing of databases


even if the UK left the EU. That is likely, although let's not forget


that the director of Europol said that that would be more costly and


certainly less effective. The broader point is that we would need


to take what we were given. That might be good and useful, but you


could say it is not as good or as useful as designing the policies


that the whole continent adopts. Let's pick up some of the comments


on Prevent. Do you agree with David Anderson that there should be an


independence grew junior of Prevent? It is something the home affairs


select committee is looking at at the moment. We must be careful not


to throw the baby out with the bath water. I think it is a great thing


that we have a programme to reach out to young people to help parents,


when they are worried about their children. One of the common


misconceptions about Channel is that it comes in for criticism because of


various stories that have emerged. But actually, Channel is a voluntary


service and a young person can only be referred to it with the parent's


consent. But the issue raised by David Anderson is one of


transparency. If we don't know what Prevent is doing or how successful


it has been or what his agenda is, how can it be judged? Well, there


are many voices that are very noisy at the moment about Prevent. Think


sometimes, we have heard from some of those voices in the home affairs


select committee in our work looking at this, and some of those voices


crowd out the work going on on the ground. For example, more than 285


mosques are working with the Prevent scheme, 800 schools and colleges,


100 faith groups. I understand that we perhaps need to sell it better,


not just two communities directly affected by Prevent, but the whole


of the country. But we mustn't stop talking to these children and young


people, because what is the alternative? One of the complaints


from a member of the Muslim community that came onto the


programme said that they felt they were outside the Prevent strategy


and were not part of the discussions about how to deal with the


communities. Well, this is a long term project. Where criticisms are


being voiced, we should take those on board. But Prevent is about


safeguarding our young people, and we must bear that in mind. Is it fit


for purpose, Prevent? I don't think so. After the 7/7 bombings, the


police did not stop a single attack on a Muslim. In the last few years,


there has been a huge increase in Islamophobic incidents. And it is


not just Muslim terrorists. We have a lot of far right individuals,


bringing in arms by post from abroad. But all you hearing the


media is Muslim, Muslim, Muslim, and it is alienating people. Prevent is


also about preventing youngsters from going on a very dark path. In


that sense, it has failed, because we hear reports all the time. But we


only hear when has not worked, we don't hear about the success


stories. Are you saying there would have been more people going to Syria


to fight for Isil if not for Prevent? We have heard from


witnesses who consider it to be a very useful tool in helping direct


young people away from negative influences, sometimes on the


computer in their bedroom or their iPad. We have to tackle this. We


can't just criticise it. Victoria is right, there is an Prevent shaped


space. Ibrahim Anderson, my namesake was committed a few weeks ago for


soliciting members for Isis, it came out during his trial that he had


been photographing his six-year-old and eight-year-old sons in front of


the black flag, holding swords and pointing at heaven. One would hope


that any responsible schoolteacher might at least have half an eye open


for that sort of thing. The problem with Prevent is that it has become a


sort of lightning conductor for a lot of dissatisfaction. And one of


the reasons for that, I'm afraid, is that a lot of Muslims in this


country do not feel engaged with. They feel the government is talking


to a limited range of people, and if they are going to solve things


together against the men of violence at the outer edges, you have to talk


to people. Let's talk briefly about the Investigatory Powers Bill. Does


that have your support now? It has been revised, according to the


government. We just heard from David Davis that he feels it's not going


far enough in terms of judicial oversight. There is one good thing


about the Investigatory Powers Bill, which makes it the much unique in


the world, and that is that all the powers that the agencies and the


police have and aspire to our set out clearly, in a way that can be


debated democratically in Parliament. That is incredibly


unusual in the world, and it was brave even to attempt it. It was my


recommendation that we should, and I think it has been done triumphantly.


There are a lot of details to argue about. The bill is not the finished


article, but that is what Parliament is full. Parliament needs to decide


whether we are prepared for people to keep a record of our internet


browsing history, and if not, Parliament will also decide


browsing history, and if not, will not become part of the


Now - riot police are supporting demolition teams as they continue


to dismantle shelters in the Calais migrant camp known as the Jungle.


This follows scenes of violence overnight,


with police firing tear gas as migrants hurled stones.


the migrants must move to shipping containers on another part


They don't want to be registered as asylum seekers in France,


and are instead desperate to travel to Britain.


Our correspondent is in Calais. What is going on behind you? As far as


many of the migrants are concerned, this place represents their best


chances of making it across the Channel to the UK. Today, things are


moving fast. Yesterday, all of this was tense and wooden homes. Last


night, we were here as the police through these tear gas canisters


into the camp to try to clear the protesters, people trying to repel


the demolition workers. Now they are progressing through


the demolition workers. Now they are speed. The authorities said


bulldozers would not be used and that they would use a softly-softly


approach. That is not what we have been witnessing in the Jungle. So


the riot police came in first this morning to clear the way. You can


see that there are still some migrants on site, but most have


moved from the southern section towards the north. Many have gone


elsewhere already. They have gone to another camp with even worse


conditions in nearby Dunkerque. What has their response been? And what


about those still there? I was speaking to one man an hour or so


ago. He came from Sudan. He said that he feared for his life. He said


he had fled this kind of thing in his own country and he did not


expect to find it in Europe. He said he tried to cross the Channel 20


times since he has been here. He has tried on trains and lorries, like so


many. That is one of the reasons they are trying to clear this


Jungle. They are trying to demolish it to act as a deterrent, to


dissuade others from following this well trodden path. They are also


trying to stop people from risking their lives, because they believe


that if they come here, they have a chance of getting to the UK. So they


are trying to push them elsewhere. The question on the minds of so many


is, where will they go now if there is no room at Dunkerque, which we


have been told by the migrants is run mostly by violent people


smugglers? Where will they go next? I'm joined now in the studio


by Ukip's spokeswoman on home Is it your belief that if we weren't


in the EU, we wouldn't be seeing these scenes in Calais? Yes, I


believe it is. Why? Well, the draw for these migrants is an economic


future in the United Kingdom. They have gone all the way across Europe.


They have got in either via Lesbos, the Mediterranean roots, or the


Balkan route. They have then either been trafficked or made their own


way all the way to Calais and Dunkerque, and they are there


because they see an economic future in the UK. What difference would it


make if we were not in the EU in terms of migrants trying to get over


to the UK? I am not following your point. If we were out of the EU,


migrants would still want to come to Britain. Why would it be more


difficult for them if we were outside the EU? What I do have hoped


would have happened by now is that those individuals, instead of


risking their lives, would apply by legal means to come to the United


Kingdom. And if are out of the European Union, they then clearly


would not be able to get as far as they could in terms of the Channel


ports. Do you agree with that assessment? I think that if we leave


Europe, it will make no difference. These people have trekked all the


way across Europe because they want to come to Britain, because Britain


is seen as the best of the European countries to bring your kids up in


and it is the most open and delete intolerant about Muslims. -- the


least intolerant about Muslims. And we are largely responsible for this.


The Americans wanted to overthrow Assad and Gaddafi, and they did get


rid of Saddam Hussein. It has been catastrophic. Frankly, it is worse


off now if you are a Libyan, Iraqi or Syria than it was before. Our


interventions have been a disaster. That is the foreign policy argument


as you see it for the cause of the wave of migration. Are you convinced


that it wouldn't change it if Britain pulls out of the EU? You


think these scenes will carry on? It could get worse, because there will


be a lot of people in European governments saying, why should we do


anything for Britain? Well, I obviously disagree. They have got to


Calais on the basis that they have managed to breach the European


frontiers. The Schengen system allows them to then get as far as


they did. Possibly the only area where we might agree, let's take


that out of the equation. The issue is that they get into Europe and


they then get as far as they do on the basis that there is no border


control. There is no passport control. But they would still be


able to do that, even if we have left. We are not disagreeing. So it


will not really change the situation. We are not part of


Schengen anyway. As you say, many of these migrants are wanting to just


get to Britain to live and work. They are not interested in the rest


of Europe. And that would not change. No, but there is this cohort


that are so focused on getting to the UK that they are prepared to put


themselves at that degree of risk. Thousands of individuals are


arriving either on the Macedonian border or on the Greek islands, and


we have no idea what proportion of those are still prepared to take the


next level of risk and get all the way to Calais and Dunkerque. But it


hasn't affected the UK. These are desperate scenes on mainland Europe,


but in terms of the numbers of people that have made it to Britain


as a result of the migrant crisis and have actually been accepted


either as asylum seekers and refugees, hasn't really changed


since this has erupted. Firstly, your questions ought to be directed


at the county council, that is having to look after children and


home some of these people -- Kent County Council. You also ought to


talk to Kent Police, who have to manage these individuals when they


jump out of the two service stations from lorries they have hidden in.


You also have to talk to somebody like the head of Eurostar and


Eurotunnel, who has seen a begin pack on their business on the basis


that trains are being stopped -- it has had a begin pack. But the


figures do not back that up. There were 25,000 asylum application from


a applicants in the year ending June 2000 15. Only 2000 of those were


from Syria. The number of applications remains low relative to


the number of applications in 2002. Your issue is with asylum seekers.


We are not talking about them, we are talking about individuals who


are a number of European heads of state have said are economic


migrants. We have had interviews and we have seen press coverage and we


have heard individuals talking about the reason they want to get to the


UK being nothing to do with asylum. They are going because they believe


they can get a job, a better standard of living or they are


entitled to benefits. But would you agree that if we were not part of


the EU, would have less influence on discussions to do with the migrant


crisis? Not at all. We have an opt out of the Schengen agreement. We


are signed up to the UN Convention on asylum processing and management.


So in terms of our role in or out of the European Union, I would rather


go with those two issues, rather than follow something the EU is


trying to manufacture. Will it be part of your campaign? Migration and


lack of border control, yes, of course that is an important point


here. It is, the lack of border control... The migrant crisis... It


is about the uncontrolled migration to the United Kingdom. Germany has


been criticised and also praised for the decision and the announcement by


Angela Merkel to say, Syrian refugees are welcome here. Do you


think as the migrant crisis unfolds and the pressure on countries like


Italy, Greece and Macedonia, that it was the wrong thing to say? No,


Greece and Macedonia cannot cope, there has to be a Europe-wide


response and each country has to take their fair share of genuine


asylum seekers. The worries that you have is that anyone in the other 27


European countries is free to come here. Asylum seekers represent an


minute part of migration coming to Britain. Most of it is legal and


from the rest of Europe. In the case of Macedonia is it right that they


have taken a hard line? They describe 400 men trying to break


through before they had been registered. Is that the right way to


go? I think it is, Macedonia happens to be one of seven Schengen members


that has temporarily, I will put that in quotes, reintroduced border


control. The Schengen agreement was effectively a passport to allow


extremism and terrorism to the passport free right across Europe.


You have the head of an organisation such as that, an organisation with a


huge amount of authority, making that statement, what Macedonia has


done is spot on. Even using tear gas to control crowds? Fire that small


children? I don't know the exact details. On the basis of what you


have said, if they have used tear gas, maybe they


have said, if they have used tear option. I don't agree. You don't


think tear gas should be used. The complaint is that large groups have


been pending for so long that complaint is that large groups have


frustration is now overflowing and erupting, so they tried to push


through. What do you say to that? This awful anarchist organisation


called No Borders, currently creating trouble in Calais, has not


made it to Macedonia. Quite frankly creating trouble in Calais, has not


the mayhem they have caused over the past few months in Calais for


example, if they were to replicate that in Macedonia or Lesbos,


goodness knows. It's a shameful reflection on the UK. Would you open


the doors and would you like to see the government welcoming large


numbers of migrants in the way Angela Merkel has done in Germany?


There is a real problem that the pressure we have got on


There is a real problem that the homes, unless the government is


prepared to create more jobs and homes it will be hugely contentious.


You don't think it's a good idea? These asylum seekers have taken our


jobs and homes... The truth is that Labour and Tory governments haven't


created enough. Would you now say, let's take in 20,000, 30,000, 40,000


Syrian migrants or Iraqis but Mark I come from Brent and when we have a


crisis in 72 when Ugandans were kicked out of their country, the


Edward Heath government asked councils like Brent to take 10000


and they gave financial support to build homes. -- or Iraqis? If people


are coming you have to plan and build homes and make sure more jobs


will be created. That is the problem, we have a system as was


shown last week with the statistics, we can't control our borders so we


can't control the numbers coming in and plan accordingly. No responsible


government should be constantly looking backwards and saying, hold


on, our policy will be catching up. That is currently what the situation


is. Now - our Guest of the Day,


Ken Livingstone, is perhaps best It's often said that the capital


is a Labour city - the party has most of the city's MPs


and assembly members - but it's actually only


won the mayoralty once, Ken standing as an independent


in the first contest in 2000. and exciting innovation


for Londoners. If there's a big turnout


and there is a yes vote, He wanted to be Labour's candidate.


banked on was this man, and pushed his then Health Secretary


Frank Dobson instead. Why doesn't he split the job


of Mayor for London? The former Health Secretary can run


as his day mayor and the honourable


member for Brent East He's thinking


about it, I can tell! So when Ken Livingstone wasn't


selected as Labour's candidate, He lost the Labour whip,


but he won the election. As I was saying before


I was so rudely interrupted Incidentally, the campaign hadn't


been great fun Their original candidate,


one Jeffrey Archer, had rather unceremoniously bowed out


following those perjury charges. He was replaced by Steve Norris,


who decided to run again in 2004. By that time, Ken


Livingstone had been welcomed back I always said Ken would


make a great mayor. But fast forward four years,


and a new Tory kid on the block. It was a hard-fought


campaign, And as for Ken, Mayor Livingstone,


I can tell you that your courage with which you stuck it


to your enemies, especially in New Labour,


you have thereby earned the thanks and admiration of millions


of Londoners, even if you may think


that they have a funny way Boris "hung on" four years later,


once again beating Ken Livingstone So in 16 years, London has


had just two mayors. Come May, there will


have to be a third. is a former Conservative mayoral


candidate who faced Ken Livingstone twice -


in 2000 and 20004. Welcome to the programme,


Steve Norris. Is London a Labour City? You look at


the number of seats and the way they performed at local elections


recently, it is a Labour City? If you look at the difference between


what Labour got in the general election and in London it is quite


striking, 31% nationally and over 40% in London. Ken is the great


election Guru in London. To assume that the mayoralty will always be a


Labour fiefdom could be very dangerous. Boris Johnson is still


until he steps down the mayor, but has it gone so far now that there is


an inevitability that the City is on course to pick a Labour candidate?


No, it is a battle between inner and outer London and I didn't get it out


well enough in the first election, lots of people said, we don't


particularly like the idea, it is another layer of bureaucracy. We did


better in the second term. The margin closed between me and Ken and


Boris got more out and you can have a Tory in London and I don't see any


reason to disbelieve that. Labour is actually now a London party,


everything seems to be focused there in terms of the Shadow Cabinet


positions, the leader of the party, Shadow Chancellor, it is just a


London party. Not really. The simple fact is that whereas 40 years ago


people always voted the same way, they never changed, people will


change their mind on the way to the polling station, it has become


celebrity politics and I loathe that. I like boring old arguments. I


hated all of that. I came into politics to do things. You were


still seen as a character? Margaret Thatcher created that by depleting


me as a threat to national security. You fought two campaigns, what


advice would you give to Zac Goldsmith? To actually get on and


make sure the outer ring boats for you because if you look at Boris's


performance, he won by 60,000 plus. Because he had broader appeal. A big


turnout in Bromley. If you get the vote out in Bromley, Bexley, Croydon


for the Conservatives, you win, and if you fail to do that, you don't.


You once told a journalist that the more you got to know Ken, the less


you liked him. I was quoting Neil Kinnock. Everybody likes Ken


Livingstone apart from the people who know him! I was quoting other


politicians, as it happens, I won't name them. Do you still support


Sadiq Khan? Absolutely, like me he wants to do things and he is really


focused on detail, a very effective minister. There is already quite a


lot of Islamophobia in Standard. I think as well it will be a


significant breakthrough if London shows that in a western country and


Muslim can be elected in a senior position, that will be reassuring to


a lot of Muslims who don't feel they are part of the country. Have things


gone sour between you? A recent editorial in the Evening Standard


encouraged Londoners to vote for Jeremy Corbyn's vision of a better


City. Sadiq Khan gave an interview to the Jewish Chronicle in which he


said, I won't be another Ken Livingstone. Me and Boris should


keep out of this and we should focus on the two candidates we have got.


You could not have a more striking contrast. Ordinary London guy whose


dad was a bus driver against one of the bridges people in Britain. Will


you go for his seat in tooting? I am a retired pensioner! You were


involved in convening the defence review. That brought you back from


retirement. It is quite interesting. We can discuss Trident! We can do


that on another occasion. Will it be dirty? Sadiq Khan is getting


oversensitive about this business. About being Muslim. Zac Goldsmith


said he was a radical and he complained bitterly, saying that he


was a smear, but Sadiq Khan described himself as radical. These


things will play, this is a big prize with serious candidates. As


far as I'm concerned the result is still in the balance. It is nice to


bring sparring partners back together.


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


The question was which of the following Labour politicians


Liam Byrne, John McDonnell, Lord Falconer, or Toby Perkins?


Who hasn't grown a beard? My guess would be Toby Perkins. It is your


friend John McDonnell Viktoria Gunes have you not noticed? It is just


that he forgot to shave. -- it is your friend John McDonnell!


The One o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow with Andrew


We are told that OJ Simpson IS in that car,


Do you think he did it? She was terrified of him.


Give me the gun. I want him to finish this day alive.


Download Subtitles