01/03/2016 Daily Politics

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.