18/03/2016 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Protests on the tampon tax, personal independence payments,

and now a VAT increase on energy saving products -

why is the Chancellor under such sustained attack from his own MPs

David Cameron and other EU leaders meet in Brussels to agree

on what they'll offer the Turks to take back migrants -

but will the Turkish Prime Minister accept the deal?

The papers aren't frightened to tell us what they think about the EU -

but will you be taking any notice of what they say?

And did two ten-year-olds, with a bit of help from

Alistair Campbell, get the better of me on CBBC this morning?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration,

two guests who I hope won't be as difficult as those girls,

Rosa Prince, author of "Comrade Corbyn",

who also writes for the Telegraph, and Sun columnist, Trevor Kavanagh.

So just 48 hours since George Osbone delivered it, Wednesday's budget

seems to be coming under multiple attack from his own MPs.

And after hostile press reaction, there are signs it might not be

going down too well with the public either.

you just hate politicians with prepared sound bites.

A YouGov poll for The Times today shows 38% of the public think

Wednesday's Budget was unfair, just 28% thought the opposite.

And 51% now think the government is handling the economy badly.

Conservative MPs are also queuing up to lay into the Budget.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan has led the rebellion on the so-called

Tampon Tax, describing it as "fundamentally wrong".

A survey of Tory MPs show four out of five want to tear into the Sugar

Bolton MP Chris Green speaks for many when he describes it

John Redwood is kicking off about a move to increase VAT

on energy saving materials like loft insulation and solar panels.

And David Burrowes is amongst those ganging up against the Chancellor's

plans to cut funding for Personal Independence Payments

or PIPs for everywhere in the UK apart from Northern Ireland,

saying his decision "takes a backward step from

Last night, Education Secretary struggled to defend George Osborne's

proposed changes to PIPs when quizzed about it on Question

I think overall we want there to be control of the welfare budget, that

is something we have made very clear in our manifesto, we also made very

clear we are not going to balance the books on the back of the most

vulnerable and the disabled and we still hold to that promise. First of

all have too finished the consultation and the conversations

we are having with MPs, but also with disability groups and others,

before we even bring any legislation forward. It was interesting last

night, the Education Secretary implying there were still a

consultation period going on, almost that nothing really had been

decided. This morning it was said she was speaking out of turn and

there would be more discussion, but the government was like position had

not changed. We are joined by Conservative MP Paul Scully. On the

PIPs, is there a sense that the government is in retreat, and that

if it isn't, there would be a Tory rebellion? My particular position

with that is that we have had the consultation over the last few

months, and it is important we carry on talking about this issue.

I really don't think it needs to be completed with the budget. It was

unfortunate in many ways it was announced with a budget, because we

need to make sure that personal independence payments work for

people, especially the most needy. Would you vote for them at the

moment? I want to see the detail, it is all very well having a couple of

lines on a budget statement, but it is all about the detail, seeing the

consultation. What about the vat issues, what is your beef? Again, it

is not in the budget, this is something that the European court

actually overruled the UK Government, saying that we can't

continue to charge 5% of tax VAT, on energy-saving products, and it is

absolutely outrageous that the European court... What have we got

to charge? The full 20%. So we have a situation where we can look at a

sugar tax, where we are penalising people are doing something the

government doesn't believe is right but we can't reward people for the

thinks is a good thing. Frankly, we need to leave the EU, that is why I

am campaigning to leave it on June 23. So this is grist to your mail,

that the insulation tax on insulation products that we are all

meant to be doing is not determined by Westminster but by Brussels? The

FT, when they cover the European court decision spoke of the fact

that they thought that the European Commission preferred subsidies to

VAT relief, so basically a hand-out or someone else's money, rather than

a cut in VAT. These should be UK decisions. Labour is going to put

down an amendment to reverse on the insulation tax, will you vote for

it? It is something I am seriously considering. I always vote as one

member of a Conservative government, I would love to think that people in

Sutton voted for me personally, I have limited currency, so when I

want to make a point, I rarely want to make sure it is actually going to

make that point, that we will see some changes as a result. I look at

the wording, how it affects the budget, and if it doesn't affect the

good things that have happened, of which there are many in the budget,

then I will support the amendment. Ayew that interested in solar panels

or wind turbines or is it just a good stick to beat the government?

For me it is raising the point of our role as a member of the EU. I

have the confidence that we can stand and look globally, outward,

rather than the inward looking European Union. That is where I am

looking and my focus. Is your Chancellor a bit of a busted flush

on the back benches? Not at all. He has raised thousands of people out

of paying 40% tax that should not have been in that category in the

first place. The fact he has improved small business rates

relief, as someone who ran a small business or 20 years before I was

elected, that is rarely important. He fall went any major pension

reform, he did not put up the fuel escalator. If you don't use that now

when will you ever use it? He tried to construct a budget that didn't

make any enemies on the Tory backbenches, and he is now facing

multiple attacks on the Tory backbenchers from people like you.

As I say, I do think I am attacking the Chancellor, I am attacking the

fact we can't make our decisions within the European Union, which is

part of a wider campaign in the lead up to Independence Day, shall we

say, on June 23. That is really my focus. If you look at the budget,

there are many good things for the Chancellor to do. His chances of

being the next Tory leader are not looking so good. That is a decision

to come. I really haven't even started to think about that,

frankly. That is hard to believe. It is just the media who talk about

that. It is always the media. If Mr Osborne is such a considered and

insightful political strategist, why is he always in a mess? This is a

very good question, he is a very good tactician but I am not sure

about the strategy, and I think this is more than an Omni shambles. Not

just things like the tap in tax and the sugar tax on all the other

things that have caused so much anger, we will still overshoot on

the deficit, we still have a ?1.75 trillion national debt, and there is

a very good chance it could be blown completely of course between now and

the general election, let alone between now and the next leadership.

What is your take on the Chancellor's statement? He is a rare

politician that is extremely tactful -- tactical and insightful except

when it comes to his own image. I think he has done damage with the

public, the public to begin with the not too, and he has done nothing in

this budget or the intervening years between becoming Chancellor to

really improve that and I don't understand why. Politicians are

normally so vainglorious, it is all about making themselves look good.

In a way it is quite proficient that he doesn't seem to be to do it for

himself. You get the impression he is a Chancellor for when things are

going right. But as a Chancellor when things go wrong, he doesn't

have the connection with the public that will help them get through the

things that are going wrong. In theory everything is going right, or

would have been up until this moment because the Conservatives are in

power, they can do things of that have never dreamt of being able to

do. He could have taken bold decisions which would have been

applauded certainly on his own side of the house and in the end would

have perhaps borne fruit in time for the next election. He failed on all

of these fronts, and we saw this gigantic national debt and still

growing deficit. Let's begin with Tory rebellion morning, we are doing

a service for you by doing a survey. We're joined now from Bristol

by the Conservative MP, Johnny Mercer, who is concerned

about the changes to The arm payments to disabled people

that are paid to -- these are payments to disabled people. What is

your complaint about what the government is planning? Andrew, you

will have to come back to be because I have a different voice coming

through my, not you. Really, what kind of voice is it? You sound like

a lady, actually. The operation is only half finished. You can hear me,

can't you? There is another voice in my BMI can't hear Andrew. Hold on,

there you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can hear you, but also three

other different voices. We can go for it. We don't want to do that, we

will try to sort that out, Mr Mercer and we will come back to you on

that. And go away, our finest technicians are on it as we speak.

Is there a kind of mood of rebellion in the Tory backbenches at the

moment, partly sparked off because you are going your separate ways on

the referendum? I think there is a lot of open debate. I'm not sure if

it is the same as rebellion. People are looking at if you different

things. We talked about the budget, this is why I think it is wider than

just a budget. We are looking at the European referendum, how the

European decisions affect our budget and finances, so that is quite a

fundamental issue, you are absolutely right. But I think the

2015 intake and the 2010 intake before, our independent thinkers, I

don't think we are party apparatchiks, but we do understand

that the fundamental things, we are not serial rebel is, it doesn't get

you that far if you just seen as a serial rebel. Apart from Jeremy

Corbyn, obviously. People don't like parties that are perennially

divided. If this is a bitter campaign, and it has been quite

bitter so far, even if the Prime Minister wins the referendum, it

could be quite difficult just to return to business as usual.

Frankly, I think some of the things in the periphery, the personal

attacks, the personal things, the driven debates, are something that

we just don't need. This is a really, really important decision

for the country. It will affect us for the next few decades, and that

is why we have got to concentrate on the issues. Is it not surprising

that, having had to retreat on making essentially cuts on tax

credits for the working poor, that he would not have been a lot more

careful in what was being planned for the disabled? If you have to

retreat from the working poor and many want to take on the disabled,

maybe you need some new advisers? I think so, and also the presentation

of the 2.2 billion saved, the savings on the PIPs and the 2.2

billion being spent on middle-class tax breaks is so neatly discernible

that it just makes people think they are robbing the poor to pay the

rich. And that just doesn't go down well. Mr Corbyn has been given an

open goal. He has, that is why we have seen him have probably his best

week since he has been leader. And doing not badly in the polls. Any

Labour member who takes that to seriously would be wise to remember

Ed Miliband. But it helps, it also means he is there, when you are

doing like that in the polls, the Parliamentary party is running out

of excuses to mount a coup against him. Yes, I never thought it was

that likely. I agree. Just because of the scale of the victory and the

two fingers up to the people who joined the party. And it goes back

to the electorate who chose in the first place. It solidifies his

place, he is not going anywhere. The one thing I thought interesting with

his budget response was not just what he said but how he said it.

Jeremy Corbyn, just because he has been around for so long, he sounded

so confident, whereas usually a Leader of the Opposition as we all

know, that is the toughest gig. It is not your field of expertise, it

is not something you are dealing with day in, day out, but you have

to respond to a budget you have not had any pre-sight of, and he spoke

very well. It could have been leaked. Most people knew what was

coming. I have always said it would be a mistake to underestimate Jeremy

Corbyn. I watched his budget response and it was pretty good. A

lot of people divided it and said it was knee jerk stuff, but I thought

he handled it quite well. Let's see if lines to Bristol Arbor -- are up

without interference, Mr Mercer, does it sound like me? It sounds

like you. I apologise for that, but let's proceed nevertheless, what is

your beef about the government's changes to the disabled?

I just think we need to be really careful. We're talking about the

most vulnerable group in society, the bottom 20% in terms of former

ability. This is their lifeline. We've got to be ready careful. We've

got to get it right and we've got to get the message right. At the same

time we have to accept that this is an ongoing, fluid process. There

have been judgments in the last 18 months which have PIP made claimants

go up treble in that time. We need to maintain our ability and agility

to work with that and make sure the money is going to the right people

so that we are looking after our most vulnerable, and at the same

time in courage and those who can work to get into work, which is what

this Government was elected to do. I do have concerns about it. Whenever

we're dealing with the most vulnerable in our communities, we

need to be relief careful. We need to communicate the policy properly.

It can be enormously worrying. The PIP payment is a real lifeline for a

lot of people in Plymouth. How widely are your concerns shared by

your bank bench colleagues? I don't know, I've just arrived from

Washington last night. I will look at this and interrogate it. I'm a

compassionate conservative, I don't know any other form of conservatism

than that. I was concerned and I am concerned in terms of how we

communicate this properly. But I'm not going to stick my head in the

sand and say we walk away from a problem where there may be abuse and

there may be duplication and sake we don't have time to fight that fight,

because we have too, if we're going to make sure that we're giving our

most vulnerable people as much money and support as we can, as much as

they deserve. In dealing with the most vulnerable groups in society,

you need to be very careful and we need to be very -- we need to work

very hard to communicate what we're doing to those groups. There is some

I've seen some evidence of that. But I've also seen that money lost in

fraud to people making claims that they're not entitled to is peanuts

in the overall scheme of things, and indeed the bureaucratic

inefficiencies of the department in the handing out of these benefits

costs more money than whatever is lost, small as it is, through fraud.

I agree with that, Andrew. There has been a lot of work in this area.

Fraud and abuse of it is minimal. You have to balance that with the

policy, as it was first presented in the media, that was that PIP was

just going to get taken away. If you are on PIP, it's going to be

heartbreaking. If there are policies we can make Tibet improve care for

our most vulnerable people, we have to do that. We must work hard to

make sure that people understand we not adjusting most people's

payments. This government is spending more and more on

disability. We have to be fair. The budget this year is ?50 billion, ?34

billion on defence, so we are prioritising this correctly. We have

to be very careful if we're dealing with these groups. According to the

ISS, several hundred thousand, it may require more than eight tweet,

several hundred thousand disabled people could disability payments

altogether or see them but quite substantially. That would be a cut

that would matter a lot that these people, because they are not on that

much money. They are generally on low levels of pay. You take away a

bit of the disabled payments they get and that will cause real pain to

people who I would suggest are already suffering a. You're

absolutely right. I don't want to blow my own trumpet but I spend so

much of my time working with these groups. I'm in it for that 20% who

we have to look after, for whom life is really difficult. I work with the

Special Olympics. There have been veterans charities ringing my phone

since this came out, talking about this policy. We have to be careful

with projections and what it actually means. If there are points

coming off someone's PIP assessment, it doesn't necessarily mean they're

going to lose money. This government is committed to looking after its

most vulnerable. The Prime Minister has said that. I would welcome

people to come to my surgeries in Plymouth or wherever that may be, if

there are the most vulnerable who are being this affected by this,

because that is not the intention and we need to do better as a

government to get that across. Naturally we asked for the

government to give us someone we could speak to about this, either

from the Treasury or the Department for Work and Pensions, but none were

available, not even the Downing Street cat.

The question for today is all about a suggestion

for a new tax that's been made by the Environment

Yes, another new tax, the Conservatives are very

open to the idea these days, it seems.

At the end of the show, Rosa and Trevor will give us

Now, a UKIP candidate for the the Welsh Assembly in May

has been attacked after accusing Eastern European immigrants

in Cardiff of causing a "hygiene problem" in the city.

Gareth Bennett, who tops the party's list in South Wales Central,

and they have a list system in Wales, is reported to have made

the comments in a newspaper interview.

We're joined now from Cardiff by Mr Bennett.

Mr Bennett, what is it that you said? Well, Andrew, I alluded to

waste problems in this area of Cardiff. These have intensified in

recent years with the arrival in that area of high numbers of Eastern

European immigrants, and I suggested that the problem may be connected

with that development in the area. I see you are having trouble with your

earpiece, like our other guests. I can hear you now. Thank you very

much. You said there is a hygiene problem. What is that problem? It is

caused by black bags being left outside houses. There is lots of

anecdotal evidence of this. There is a piece in the South Wales Echo

demonstrating that very problem. You might be able to pick out the large

number of black bags that have simply been thrown in the front

garden not on a rubbish collection day. These are the local residents

complaining. That is clear evidence that there is such a problem. Once I

get into the assembly, I will be representing the views of these

residents. It seems rather strange, the suggestion that I should not be

representing their very genuine concerns about this issue. What

evidence do you have that there is -- if there is this rubbish problem

that it is migrants who are causing it? I don't have any firm evidence

to give you now but if you wish I can come back in a week's time with

lots of residents from that area and we can have a talk live on air if

you want about that problem. Many have connected it in talks with me

to the Eastern European influx, and I'm happy to bring those people into

the studio. The only problem is, Andrew, you might need a bigger

studio. Indeed, you could say that in general... Would it not have been

checked the evidence first, to have established the evidence before

making the accusation? The accusation that Eastern European

migrants are causing "A hygiene problem". Yes, that would have made

sense. Why didn't you do it? Well, where is this data caps? Which

council can tell me the connection? There is very clear empirical

evidence, Andrew. 15 years ago we did not have this level of

immigration in this area of Cardiff, and we did not have that level of

hygiene problem. That is clear empirical evidence. Why'd you

believe it is Eastern European migrants responsible for this?

Because many people have told me so. But you haven't yet established any

independent evidence. Have you spoken to any of these Eastern

European migrants to see if they are responsible and see what they say?

So I go up to them and say, please sir, are you responsible for the

black bag problem? What do you think their response to that is going to

be? Yes or no I would imagine. And a punch in the face possibly. So you

are suggesting they are violent? Not in them a plea, but if you want to

do that, you can come down to Cardiff and see what the responses.

Do your party now want to remove you from the list? I believe that may be

the case but I don't know, I haven't spoken to anyone from the party

today. They've been trying to get a hold of you. Well, I was coming on

this programme. I have sent them a problem with the draft of a legal

letter so that if they try to deselect me without due process,

they will face a legal action from me for lost earnings of ?300,000.

They are aware of this. If they believe my comments have brought the

party into disrepute, we could have a rerun of the candidate selection

process in which I was elected as the lead candidate by the Ukip party

members throughout Wales. If they want to, we could have a rerun of

that. If the Ukip party members think my comments are in any

distributable, they can vote appropriately. It would be

interesting to see if they that rerun ballot where I would place in

it. It sounds like you're going to be fighting among yourselves. Is it

true that you don't like knocking on doors? You don't think politicians

should not on people's doors to get people's votes? Lots of people are

watching Coronation Street and they don't want to get interrupted from

doing that. With canvassing, you get a lotto skewed results. I've seen a

lot of candidates campaigning for the first time he gets election

fever, they come in saying they're going to win the seat and they get

15%. When you knock on people's doors and they are watching

Coronation Street, they are liable to tell you they will vote for you,

they will often tell you anything to get rid of you. There is a limited

scope for canvassing. There is a base for it but not always. Are you

Ukip's new loose cannon? I understand you described the Labour

leader of Cardiff Council as brain dead? I believe I did say that, but

that view is widely held in Cardiff from even within the Labour Party.

Though you're not pushing to retract that at all? No, I never retract

anything I say at all. At least we know where you stand and you did

answer the questions straight. Now, EU leaders meeting in Brussels

have agreed a package of measures to offer Turkey in return

for the country taking back the thousands of migrants arriving

in Greece every day. Many of them the islands and many

make it onto the mainland. The plan is an essential part

of the EU strategy to solve the migrant crisis, with fears

that the numbers attempting the crossing will increase again

as summer approaches. It has already been at record levels

in the winter months. Let's talk to our correspondent

in Brussels, Ben Wright. As I understand it, the European

Union has agreed the broad outlines of what it's going to offer, based

on the Merkel package. Do we have any idea yet what the Turkish

reaction is? Many floors up from where I'm standing they are having

that discussion right now. Donald Tusk, president of the Council,

Jean-Claude Juncker, they are all having small groups of meetings with

the key players to back an agreement hammered out before the rest of the

28 members of the European Union sit down together and try and sign this

off. The European Union agreed their negotiating position over five hours

of talks last night. Now they're trying to do a deal. There is no

guarantee there going to get one because there are a lot of sticking

points. We know Angela Merkel really wants a deal, but for instance,

Cyprus is not going to just sign off new accession talks with Turkey

unless the Turkish government and accept that the Cypriot government

is the government for the whole island. Greece is demanding more

personnel to go down and help put this plan into practice. There are

all sorts of hurdles to clear, despite what clearly is eight strong

desire from the Turkish side and from the European Union to get an

agreement. As I understand it, the deal will certainly in the early

stages of it involve 72,000 Syrians and about 72,000 Syrians in Greece,

would they just go back to Turkey? Is there any idea what then happens

to be 72,000, because when I look at what is coming out of Eastern

European capitals, they say they are not going to take any? Viktor Orban,

the leader if you like for that central Eastern European bloc,

absolutely adamant that he may even veto a deal here, really angry about

the prospect of Syrian refugees as part of this plan being sent from

Turkey, and" had out among other EU countries, not the UK I should say,

we are not -- men handed out with a quota. There is real resistance

there. This is the second part of the deal, the first part is that

from an unspecified date, perhaps as early as Sunday, anyone arriving

illegally on Greece's shores will be turned around, maybe within hours,

possibly at the maximum of days, and is sent straight back to Turkey, and

on this one-for-one exchange of serious -- Syrians begins. But the

practical implication of the plan has huge questions around it, aside

from the big broad concerns about the legality of the plan in the

first place will stop this is why several leaders going into these

talks, President Hollande last night for instance, were not suggesting

that a deal here is inevitable, even though, as I said, everybody knows

that another migration crisis is weeks away as the weather starts to

warm up, and they need something in place that they hope can stop people

making that journey across the GMC to Greece. Just finally, when I used

to cover these summits, we used to judge them on links, whether we

needed one, two or three shirts. How many have you got with you? I have a

few shirts. I have just heard somebody say they may need some new

pants, so I think there is an expectation here that this could go

on a bit. I will keep you posted. BBC News through out the day will

keep you posted. And I'm joined now in the studio

by the Labour MEP Claude Moraes, and from Wrexham by UKIP

MEP Steven Woolfe. Claude Moraes, let me come to you

first, are you comfortable in doing a deal like this with Turkey? Know,

and that it would work as well is going to be a really moot point.

Ashun no. This one-for-one, has not been tried around the world, perhaps

Australia, push backs, and many take one, it is going to be extremely

difficult, but if I tell you where it is coming from, it is coming from

genuine crisis. Secondly, I was speaking to the Greek Immigration

Minister on Wednesday, and he said Turkey will be part of a solution of

sorts. So you have to try something. The final solution to this, if you

like... Not the best phrase. I just realised, a compassionate and

organised solution to this in the end will involve Turkey in some way.

I think it is more realistic now, because you are dealing with Turkey

not getting much, this views a realisation has 72 conditions.

Taxation is as far away as it ever was. Cyprus is saying no to the

talks, France will block it, every parliament has to say yes to it.

Accession is not even on the cards. So that's kind of Spectre is just

not there. Let me go to Stephen Walsh. Even if the European Union

did not exist, Europe would be facing a migrant crisis, and in some

collective way we would have to deal with that, and we would have to deal

with Turkey, wouldn't it? Absolutely. I have always said on

the show and in others that this crisis is a combination of many

factors, not just the war happening in Syria, but the regime change we

had in Libya, the impact in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course

the economic costs of having trade between the European Union and other

countries in Africa that puts tariff on those countries, very

excessively. So the only solution to this would be a global solution run

by the United Nations, and not placing the pressure solely on the

EU. That is the big thing that has been missing from the whole of this

crisis from the start. The UN, the international community have not

come together, they have all left it in the hands of the EU, and there

are potential solutions to this. Take, for example, at the moment

Russia has helped cleanse Isis from the northern part of Syria. There is

a real opportunity now for the world to come together and have a safe

zone in that area to allow Syrians to come back and create some kind of

Marshall plan to rebuild that country and let those people have

their lives back again. Can I just suggest to you though that if it has

been difficult enough to get a concerted and collected action

between 28 European members all in the same continent and union, that

getting the kind of UN reaction that you are calling for, and the scale

that would be required would be, to put it politely, unprecedented and

unlikely? I don't think it would be unprecedented and unlikely, not like

this potential deal, which is really reckless, foolish and potentially

dangerous for the U -- long-term future of Europe as a continent. If

you look at the way they dealt with the Kurdish area in northern Iraq,

when we had to deal with Saddam Hussein, the world community came

together and created a safe sound. That was basically the British and

the Royal Marines that did that, that was John Major with his air

cover, it wasn't the UN. I am suggesting here that on that

occasion we came to a very positive, swift solution to enable the Kurds

to live freely without the pressure that came from Saddam Hussein. Now

we have great opportunity with Isil being depleted. Where is any

evidence that Isil is depleted, any evidence I have seen has suggested

that the Russians have not been attacking Islamic State at all.

There is other evidence that they have cleansed Isis from that area,

Assad has tried to look after that area himself and create some

security, but the key point is that the Russians have backed down to the

extent where they say there should be talks in Geneva, this is a great

opportunity actually for the world to come together and said let's

create this positive framework. Let us put that to Claude Moraes, what

is your reaction? The UN might be a better vehicle the doing this? Is.

Cotton, the UN are providing the tents you see in Turkey where there

are almost -- it is a 4-star dichotomy. The UN is there. America

take more, the Canadians could take more, and they are. The

international community has to take more Syrians, no question, but when

these countries, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey became saturated, they were

always going to come to Europe, whether there was a European Union

or not, that was going to happen, and this seems to be conveniently

forgotten by those who want to just talk about the EU in this sense. The

question is now what are you about the European crisis, Turkey will be

some solution, but there is some realism in taking it down a notch

and realising it won't just be about Turkey, which is what happened in

the original discussion. There may be, Rosa, some kind of deal snatch

Cox together, but I suggest there is a fair chance, put it no higher than

that, that it could start to unravel very quickly, and that could be the

backdrop to our referendum campaign, and it could well be unhelpful to

those who wish us to remain in the European Union. I think it goes both

ways, because the images that happen with each refugee surge that we see

coming in the spring and summer, they are directly opposed to each

other. On the one hand, you have streams of people coming in, and the

concerns that our friends in Cardiff talked about, what that means for

national countries. But then you also see these horrific sights of

children dying, a little boy washed up on the beach last year I think

change the whole nature of the debate last summer. It also

suggested, did it not, that the European Union and not stepped up to

the crease to deal with this huge problem, and now many months after

it, it is still struggling to find a way forward. VE is useless, -- the

EU is useless... I should point out that other people think it is not. I

would argue that it would be worse because what this crisis shows is

that you need to come together, and as you say, the deal being stitched

together today is not going to be a perfect deal, it is not even going

to be a particularly good deal, but it means that finally politicians

and countries are coming together to try to get a grip on this. Are these

ongoing relevance the backdrop to the referendum campaign, if I can

put it that way, is this helpful to the Leave campaign? Yes, and I think

the campaign is going in the direction of the leave aside anyway.

I agree with Rosa, as you might think I would, that the European

Union is absolutely hopeless, and it has demonstrated this on almost

every major issue it has had to deal with, whether it is the single

currency or the European Constitution or the rest of it, but

on immigration and border control, it is known, as you say, that this

was happening for at least 18 months, maybe longer. And it has

done absolutely nothing concrete to deal with the problem at the

beginning, and it is now completely out of control. I don't think there

is anything that can be done that will work with Turkey. That will

almost certainly unravel as fast as it is cobbled together. I think at

the end it will be Turkey that will be the spectre that the referendum

day vote when I think people will say we have had enough of this.

Claude Moraes, is there not at least a possibility that any kind of

agreement like this will be it illegal under not just UN, but under

the Geneva Convention, and the European human rights laws? My

understanding it is illegal to treat migrants as a group, every migrant

needs to treat asylum seekers as individual cases. In this new deal,

they have inserted individual analysis of each case, which is an

extraordinary thing. It means people would be processed in Greece. It

will be extremely difficult but there will be resources put into it.

It has happened to the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, it has

happened, and Europe can do it. I disagree with Trevor. I think on

Turkey as a spectre for the Leave campaign, as people get the facts,

and as Trevor knows, France across the political spectrum does not want

Turkey in, Cyprus doesn't even want the talks to start. These

liberalisation has been blocked by 72 chapters. Once people get the

facts, they realise Turkey is not coming in. If they don't get Visa

liberalisation, I understand they have met half the 72 conditions, but

if it don't get that, why would they agree? There are too many problems

in Turkey, and they realise there will only be one strand of a bigger

solution. What is now happening is everyone is getting more realistic.

Turkey is just not going to get that much any more because it has a lot

of its own troubles. The EU has been much more realistic in this deal

than it was in the original one. Just briefly, if there was to be

some kind of UN deal overall, which you were advocating on our programme

today, would it be right for Britain to take a bigger share than we

planned to do of particularly Syrian migrants as part of a UN deal? I'm

not sure we can pick out how many numbers we do. The right decision

was to take those from the camps. Would we take more? This is not

about the numbers you take or how you distribute them, because it

could be an endless thing. You look at this migration crisis, uniform --

you know from Germany, over 90% of those who have gone into Germany are

economic migrants. You all talking about Greece, but you have to watch

coming from Libya to Italy. There will be those who say we can't come

into Greece, we tried to find other routes. So this process is going to

be bigger. Greece is saying 50,000 would potentially come each month

for the next year. Just before we go, we heard members of your party,

the lead candidate on the South west central list for Welsh Assembly 's.

He has talked about migrants in a particular road, I think, in

Cardiff, having hygiene problems stop he said the head of the Labour

Party in Cardiff Council is brain-dead, there are some people in

Ukip in Wales calling for his deselection. What is your position?

It is not for me to make the deselection process, that would be

the NEC and I understand they will do so but what I will say is I have

asked for the transcript of what this man has said from the

journalist, and if the journalist has extrapolated his views to make

it a gory story, then I think the journalist has repercussions. You

can watch on the Daily Politics today on iPlayer. And I will do

that, but if he has also said in the terms of the language that you blame

migrants or those who come to this country for all the ills of this

country, if there is a tone of any form of racism in their whatsoever,

I will be demanding that the NEC takes the strongest terms possible

to deal with this man, and not only that, I would ask those who have

examined him and approve them that they too should be reprimanded by

the NEC, because there is no room in this party for anyone, and I make

that point emphatically, there is no room for anyone in this party going

forward for anyone who makes any racist, xenophobic or any types of

comments. This is not the way forward for this party in the

future. Steven Woolfe in Wales, Claude Moraes in London, thank you

for choosing us. -- joining us. Now, the MP for Rochdale,

Simon Danczuk, has been ordered to pay back more than

?11,000 pounds in expenses after an investigation

by the Parliamentary Mr Danczuk was a Labour MP

until he was suspended by the party in December over a separate incident

in which he admitted sending lewd Let's talk to our political

correspondent, Eleanor Garnier. Why is he paying back the 11,000,

what did he claim that he shouldn't have done? He admits he has made a

mistake, that is why he needs to pay this money back. He is the MP for

Rochdale, so he lives up there, but he rents somewhere down in London,

where he stays while he is working in Westminster, and under the

Parliamentary rules, in addition to claiming for rent, MPs are also

allowed to claim up to ?2400 per child, per year, as long as the

children are routinely staying in the accommodation. Mr Danczuk has

four children, and in relation to the claims for the younger children,

they are deemed within the rules they are absolutely fine, but

imitation to the two eldest children, and the claims he made the

them, the investigation found Mr Danczuk had claimed more than

?11,500 over three years, despite his children not ever staying with

him. So he has now got to repay that. The investigation also

concluded that he made those claims knowing there was no reasonable

prospect of the children staying at the accommodation. So a pretty clear

conclusion from the expenses watchdog. For his part, Mr Danczuk

has said he holds his hands up, he made an error and will pay this

money back as soon as possible. He also says he made the claims

according to what he believed to be at the time as an accurate

interpretation of the guidelines for study says he is happy to work with

its, this watchdog, to help bring the regulations up-to-date so they

are more in line with day-to-day realities of modern family life.

Thank you very much for that. You do get the impression, you take

everything else that has happened with Mr Danczuk, first of all it

never rains but it pours for him now and secondly really the view in the

Labour Party must be that his days as a Labour politician are over? I

think so, he has one of those toxic bad smells around him now. I was

part of the team that did the original expenses investigation and

it amazes me that all these years on politicians are still cavalier with

what is our money, and also that the system is still seems to be broken.

For it to come out, it was pretty damning today, it rarely is that

damning, and for him to just say he's going to work with it... Payet

back... And nothing further than that happens.

Now, we broadcasters have to stay impeccably neutral when it come

The newspapers, on the other hand, they can tell us

exactly what they think, and try to influence us,

But will that have any effect on how people decide how to vote?

I spend a lot of time reading the papers in my job,

but over the last few months, and for the next few months,

they have been full of Europe, Europe, oh, and a little bit more

But will what they say and the slant that these newspapers have have any

Newspapers, will they influence how you vote in the EU referendum?

I'm not going to vote on the EU.

Because they haven't told you enough.

You don't know what's doing that, what's doing that.

It probably will, yeah, it probably will.

Because I don't know very much about it.

Will the newspapers influence how you vote in the EU referendum?

I don't need the newspapers to make my mind up for me.

I've already made my mind up, thank you.

So you get it from them, from their perspective.

But you wouldn't listen to one paper in particular?

Because I always do my own politics, it's what I believe in my heart

and from my mum and what I believe in the community is best for me.

So if one of these papers came out and told you to vote one way

Will the newspapers influence how you vote

Well, everybody tells you what they want you to believe.

And I think you don't get it from one source,

you have to get information from different sources,

before you make up your mind, that's all.

And we're joined now by the former Liberal Democrat MP and campaigner

In 1975, over 90% of the newspapers were in favour of Britain staying

in. This time, more of them will probably be in favour of coming out.

We don't know yet but certainly the coverage would suggest that. That's

a free society. Yes. There is very clear history and it's reasonable

that the press should be allowed to be partisan in the way that

broadcasters are not. They have set themselves some rules within that,

that they are supposed to separate news and comment. If that was really

applied by the self-regulatory and several of the papers wouldn't be

able to print everything every day. Every headline has to be justified

by the text below it, not what is left in the office or some sources

that are not included by the headline. And also they have to take

care not to print in accurate, misleading or distorted information.

They can even be biased in their news coverage but what I'm not

supposed to do is distort or mislead, or lie. Do they really need

to separate news from opinion in newspapers? If you look at front

pages on the left and the right, it is clear that the news is motivated,

the choice of the news and how they present that news, whether it's the

guardian or the Daily Mail, is informed by their worldview. As I

say, if they followed their own code, and this is their own code,

written by a committee mainly of editors, it says they must take care

to separate comment and news. They don't do it, I agree, but maybe they

should just abandon the pretence that they do it, given that they

don't. Did you sign up to that, separating news from opinion, at a

tabloid? I don't think you can really do that because the editorial

line of a newspaper colours and flavours the approach to news. It's

one of the facts of life. I think it's fantasyland to suggest that

because a paper has a view, as we do, particularly on Europe but on

many other subjects, that we don't express that in the coverage of

things we agree on. But I think that what it means is that you shouldn't

state as a factual news story what is an opinion of the editor. Maybe

Trevor is right, that it can't be done. In which case their sham

regulator should dispense with that sham rule. Trevor is a well-placed

because he is on this independent regulator and I admire him for his

opinions. But just like there is no way I should be on a press

regulator, there is no way that a regulator that says it is

independent, the biggest advocate of carrying on before pre-Leveson.. You

are a journalist, what are you doing as a press regulator? They needed a

journalist who knew about popular newspapers and therefore I was

appointed. You were appointed by Hayden Phillips, who you appointed

from the foundation group. So you appointed the guy who appointed you.

That's a really cushy number, if your newspaper did that you would be

the first to call it out. So I think you should resign yourself. I think

that is perfectly legitimate. My role in the appointment of the

chairman of the selectors was very peripheral. We simply met... This is

surely not what you came for. I want to go back to Europe. The British

papers are pretty Eurosceptic, aren't they? That informs how they

are covering this referendum. I think by and large they are. I think

it's very difficult not to be. I think in our case we are trying to

get as much balanced publicity and coverage with views from all sides

as we possibly can. Most of the headlines are pretty negative about

Europe. Because I think the subject is pretty negative. It's a perfectly

legitimate view, but it's not a balance. On Newsnight you said that

Rupert Murdoch chooses the line. I don't object to that, proprietors

only newspaper and they can say what the line is, it usually suits their

own commercial interests, but what I object to is newspapers saying we

speak for our readers, when really it is the proprietor saying it. I

don't really the standard line of your argument. There is no reason

why Rupert Murdoch shouldn't decide the line of something. I agree, but

then admitted, that he does. I think he did admit it. Andrews said there

is a lot of negative stuff in your newspaper and you say it is a

negative issue. There is a lot of negative stuff in your newspaper

about it because of one man who owns the newspaper. You're making an

assertion but it doesn't mean you're correct. We are entitled to have a

say about a major subject. He is saying it is Rupert Murdoch's view.

We are going round in a circle here. The ultimate view as Rupert Murdoch

has said several times in the past, he will make the ultimate decision

after a word from the editor of the paper. I think we're not giving

enough credence to the other way around, which is that readers often

drive their editorial decisions. Some readers are pretty anti-EU, and

working on newspapers when I did, that was very much a consideration,

what do our readers think? We knew what our readers thought and what

they wanted. I always thought it was best to ignore readers A you think

that the weight of your scepticism in the papers will influence the

outcome? If they say things that aren't true, and the Queen headline

was not supported by the text, even if what she said was correct, it did

not say that she backed Brexit, that was a breach of the code. OK, we

have to leave it there. Now,

there's an old showbusiness saying that you should never work

with children or animals. Well, we have animals in the studio

here all the time and it's never done us any harm, although

Molly the dog's hair is tricky to get out

of the carpet, I'm told. So when we agreed to let two CBBC

viewers with an ambition to work in politics come on the show,

we thought what could go wrong? in politics come on the show,

we thought, what could go wrong? Well here they are, two

10-year-olds called Charlotte and Henrietta, being interviewed

by me about their support You know what I mean

by the nanny state? The Government telling

you what to do. Isn't this just another example

of the Government trying to tell Mr Neil, do you remember

on January 31st 1983, when seat belts

were made compulsory? It wasn't a popular idea,

people didn't like it. But do you know how many

lives it saved a year? Because the Government

did something. If it's saving lives

and it's helping the NHS, I think we should be

told what to do. When I was your age and someone

told me not to do something, Maybe you weren't

educated properly enough. To future politicians there!

Wonderful, isn't it? They were great.

That was a clip from All Over the Workplace, which was broadcast

I'll be back on Sunday with the Sunday Politics.

We will dissect the budget yet again. Hope you can join me.

It's here. The biggest names in sport

and entertainment are warming up for an unmissable night.

Meet The Luthers. My family want the best for me.

Jack Whitehall seeks help from Gareth Bale.

so can you introduce me to Cristiano Ronaldo?