12/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


High noon in the Welsh Assembly as members are locked in a stand-off


But this programme understands Ukip's leader in Wales


is in talks about a deal to throw his weight behind Labour


and split with the rest of the Ukip group.


We'll have the latest on this breaking story.


The Government unveils a major overhaul of the way the BBC is run:


an external regulator, more transparency on star pay


and licence fee guaranteed for another 11 years.


New analysis shows a sharp increase in short-term immigration from the


EU which isn't being picked up by official immigration statistics.


So, are we underestimating the true numbers coming here?


And, we speak to Bristol's new mayor on his plans for the city


And with us for the whole programme today is the Guardian Columnist,


ITV has announced it will host the it. V debate featuring David Cameron


and the Ukip leader Nigel Farage ahead of next month's vote. But the


two men won't go head-to-head. They'll appear one after the other.


However, the vote leave group has accused ITV of a stitch-up. Because


Mr Farage belongs to a rival eurosceptic cap pain and not the


Vote Leave campaign. Now to our correspondent. What's the


significance of all this? In is about a debate scheduled to


take place on 7th June. It will be David Cameron answering questions


from a studio audience and then Nigel Farage answering questions


from a studio audience. They wouldn't be going head-to-head.


Still, Vote Leave unhappy with what's going on. That's because,


they don't really like Nigel Farage. Vote Leave being the official Out


campaign, Nigel Farage had hoped his would be the official campaign. That


didn't happen. Vote Leave concerned Nigel Farage is at best a divisive


character who would butt off as many undecided voters as he would


persuades them to vote to leave. That's what they're worried about.


They have issued something of a rather ominous warning to ITV


suggesting that ITV had effectively joined the official In campaign it


there will be consequences for its future saying the people of Number


Ten won't be there for long. ITV deny any stitch-up and say Nigel


Farage has been campaigning to leave the EU for the past 20-odd years.


Nigel Farage has hardly pulled any punches this morning.


The official Vote Leave campaign are run by people who have tried


tried to exclude me from everything which, frankly, is ludicrous.


We cannot win the referendum if all we see are Conservative voices.


I'm delighted we've six Cabinet Ministers.


But we need Ukip, Labour and trade union voices.


We need a degree of unity if we're going to work together.


I'm sad to see what they've said about me.


And, frankly, Michael Gove is chairman of Vote Leave,


I would say to Michael, get a grip on your staff.


The vote leave campaign would like someone like Boris Johnson, Iain


Duncan Smith or Michael Gove to debate against the Prime Minister.


It works out well for Downing Street. David Cameron wants to avoid


too much blue on blue action. He doesn't want to debate those senior


Conservative figures. It is hardly good for Tory unity. There are other


debates in the offing. Channel 4, Sky and the bean with that huge


debate planned all coming up. Noshiateses still underway. I


suspect we haven't heard the end of all of this. These are usually the


threats politicians make against the BBC. It's a least a change to have


ITV in the frame instead. Takes the pressure off us for at least a day.


This really suits the Prime Minister really well though, the Prime


Minister gets to be the voice of Remain but rather than being up


against the Michael Gove or Boris Johnson, he gets to define himself


against Nigel Farage. He may be right or wrong but he thinks that


good for his side of the argument? It goes back to this idea of just


how divisive and how toxic is Nigel Farage as a figure for the Leave


campaign. Nigel Farage insisted he's quite good for those indecideds. He


plays well in the north and Midlands in the way maybe Boris Johnson


doesn't. There's a feeling this morning from the In campaign,


Downing Street, that Nigel Farage issing a of a toxic figures and


actually, to have him as the main point of argument against him


possibly a good thing for the Remain campaign. That that's the point the


official Vote Leave campaign are trying to make.


Now it's time for our daily quiz and it seems that yet again


the all powerful Daily Politics has notched up another


This time our fearless journalism has forced the Eurovision Song


Contest to back down on one of their more outlandish directives,


so our question for today is....what has eurovision


B) Allowing people to throw underwear on stage?


C) Allowing the show to be presented by yours truely?


D) Repealing its ban on the Welsh flag?


At the end of the show, Polly will give us the correct answer.


Don't do it now. Do you have a suspicion? I think I it's probably


not knickers! Don't go there yet! Sorry! I'll mark your card closer to


the time. You may be surprised. Now, back in February we covered


the curious discrepancy between official migration


statistics and the level of National Insurance numbers


issued to EU nationals. In recent years, there has been


a sharp rise in National Insurance numbers for EU nationals which has


led to claims that the true level of immigration from the EU


is being underestimated. The government has been under


pressure to explain why the two measures have been so different


for so long. This morning, the Office


for National Statistics One of those who has been pushing


for answers is the economist Jonathan Portes, who has been


pouring over the data. He's always been pouring over this.


Jonathan, it seems, we've just got this, the ONS is saying the main


explanation for the diversion is the people getting NI numbers are coming


in just for a short time, less than a year, perhaps, to work and they


don't show up in the migration figures. Do you buy that as largely


the explanation? I buy it's largely the explanation. I agree with the


ONS on that. They have gone good work on that. I don't buy it is the


only explanation. I have a professional disagreement with them


on that. What they published today suggests there is some degree of


undercounting of long-term migration from the rest of the EU and some of


the figures they've published today, in my view, support that. It is not


the main explanation. It's not the case all the divergence is


undercounting. Most is short-term migration. There still remains, in


my view, some undercounting of long-term counting from EU member


states in these new statistics. Do we have any idea of the scale of


undercounting. Let's give our viewers of the figures. In the year


to June 2015, quite typical of recent years, we counted 260,000


migrants coming in from the EU. In other words, people coming here for


over a year. But we gave out 697,000, almost 700,000 national


insurance numbers. That is a big discrepe Si. Do we -- discrepancy.


Do we have an idea what scale of that is accounted for by the ONS


explanation and how much that leaves? A much better idea. That


date is too recent to be analysed in any detail. Some of the people


you're talking about there don't know if they're staying for three


months or three years. They've only just arrived and not made their


minds up, quite legitimately. If we go back to 2013/14, we get a better


idea. There, we see the ONS migration statistics suggest about


74,000 -- 740,000 people came in. Whereas the figures recorded are a


bit fuzzy, suggest the numbers might be somewhere in the region of


900,000 to one million. There's a lot of uncertainty about that. There


are ledge the mat disagreements. I would say on the basis of this,


there is some degree of undercurrenting. We're talking not


more than tens of thousands but not many hundreds of thousands, if that


makes sense. I wonder, Jonathan, if part of reason for the


undercounting, is the international passenger survey, which is how we do


this, is it fit for purpose? It was really invented to work out how many


visitors and tourists were coming to this country. Do you have a problem


with your sound? Can you hear me all right? No, he can't hear me. He's


actually all of ten yards away. We've naturally lost the sound. If


he was in Baghdad, we'd probably have him. We'll come back to you.


What do you make of this? It is interesting. There's always been a


lot of confusion about national insurance numbers. Frank Field, the


great expert on this, long before he was much interested in migration


always complained about the need to clean up national insurance numbers.


They're very, very baggy. It's not quite clear, people can work for a


bit, go away. It's not clear what their significance is. This is


interesting. How many people do come in. For short-term agricultural


work, summer season. Tourist work. It's hard to know how much. My


understanding is still, and Jonathan, we have him back, we'll


get him to mark our card on this. We know the number of NI numbers the


Government release but not the number of NI numbers that are


active. That's true. We should know that to be in formed, shouldn't we?


I think we should. More information and more information and we can


analyse it better. But I do think it's interesting how many people


come here, work for a while in some God awful car wash, sleeping ten to


a bedroom and go home again with a little bit of money in their pocket.


But you know, I'll come back to Jonathan in a second, will be said


by the Leave, the official count of migration from. EU under estimates,


there will be an argument about how much, underestimates the numbers


coming here? I think Jonathan is the man who knows. If he says they are


underestimating it, I'm sure he's right. He's kept his finger most on


the pulse. Jonathan, you can hear me again now? I can, yeah. What I was


saying to you was is this the international passenger sir Vai,


which is how we measure people coming in, is it really fit for


purpose in this age of mass migration? It was originally


invented, as I understand it, to mesh you are the number of --


measure the number of visitors coming here. The percentage within


that survey that are migrants short or long-term, is very small. Small


changes can make a huge difference to the outcome of the survey. Is


that fair? Well, it's fair. I wouldn't say it's not fit for


purpose. It's the best thing we have. If you look at this in the


round, it hasn't performed that badly. We may have been


underestimating the number of migrants in recent years. It is the


one survey which gives us the best picture of what's happening today.


We've stopmented that with some of the data held on Government systems.


There may have been some undercounting. But we shouldn't


chuck it in the bin. To follow up on what Polly was saying, going to the


wider picture. One thing which is very interesting, the reason all


this came about, the reason I started poking around in these


numbers, was the Prime Minister's claim that 40% of recently arrived


European migrants were claiming benefits in some form or other. One


thing this does do, it is buried in a footnote towards the end, it


explodes that. The Prime Minister's comments were wrong. He should


apologise and correct. Looking at this how much, tax EU migrants pay


during the period, it shows once again what I and others have said


for some considerable time, which is EU migrants, however many of them


there are, they don't come here to claim benefits. They come here to


work and make a strong positive contribution to the economy. Are we


able to tell what percentage of EU migrants take either in work or out


of work benefits and combine the two? Well, to be honest, there are


still details to be worked through there. We know it is considerably


less than the Prime Minister's 40%. He was assuming there were half a


million migrants when he made that calculation. The HMRC calculations


suggest it is more like a million. He may have been off by a factor of


two. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan Portes. I think


this is good to be a big story over the next couple of days.


For more on this we're joined by Ukip's immigration


spokesman Steven Woolfe, who's in Strasbourg.


And Polly Toynbee is still with me here.


Steven Woolfe, what is your take on the ONS explanation? Well, good


morning to everybody, I think these are pretty damning figures for the


government. I think it blows out of the water two things. First of all,


as everybody knows, they cannot control migration coming into the UK


from the European Union. It also blows out of the water that they


have any control of understanding how to calculate those people


working here and claiming benefits as Jonathan has just said. What we


have is a failure at the heart of government encapsulating an


understanding one of the most important things that matters to


people in the UK at the moment, immigration. But it seems that what


has come out from the ONS, and the figures will be pored over, but it


does suggest that most of the discrepancy is explained by


short-term migration, here and gone within a year, so they do not count


on the European definition. The UN definition of migration. And the


overwhelming number of migrants coming here come here to work, not


to live on benefits. I think what it shows is the reliance on a group of


hard-working people standing at airports with clipboards trying to


assess whether people are here for the wanton or not is not really the


most modern way of translating whether people stay here the long


term. Even just a simple example, some of the people they say are


short-term could come here and work this year for a short term, go home


and come back next year for work. We're not alkylating that. When you


start to analyse the fact that you are relying on clipboards rather


than proper assessment through technology, if we can count people


going on the tube is surely we should be able to assess who is


coming in and out of the country. We must address that. And I think the


argument is always suggested that those people who come from Europe do


actually work in the European Union. And this will be even greater when


we get the living wage, the ?9 here will act as a pool for people coming


from poorer countries, where wages are lower. But as we know from the


Bank of England's statistics, and from the UN, we know that


large-scale migration, in the way that we have it at the moment,


pushes down wages. And I know it is arguable, but there is some level of


job displacement. That is an important factor for people in the


economy, where we have a large amount of austerity. Let's leave it


there, there is such a long delay on the wind that it is hard to have a


conversation with you, but I am grateful to you for turning up and


asking these questions. It is early days and the figures have just come


out. It is very complicated but we will be poring over them and getting


more detail and we will come back to this subject, to work out if we have


a clearer picture of the national insurance figures and the migration


figures from the EU. These are figures that have just come out. And


even we cannot get over them that quickly.


Now, dramatic scenes in the Welsh Assembly yesterday.


An informal coalition of Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives


and Ukip successfully blocked a vote to re-appoint Carwyn Jones


as the country's First Minister, following the Welsh Assembly


elections last week in which Labour lost its overall majority.


However, this programme understands that Ukip's leader in Wales -


he's called Nathan Gill - has been in talks with Labour


about giving his support to Carwyn Jones in return


for a proposal to scrap the tolls on the Severn Bridge.


Now, if this were true, it would deny the chance


of Plaid Cymru's leader becoming Wales's First Minister.


We can talk now to Simon Thomas, an Assembly Member for Plaid's Cymru.


-- Plaid Cymru. Simon Thomas, have you heard that Ukip is about to do


this is maybe even going to split on the matter? No, we have not heard


anything formally about that but it does not surprise me. Ukip have


clearly been split since Neil Hamilton challenged the leadership


of the group. But Nathan Gill remains the leader in Wales. Labour


have a clear choice, now, of course, they can do a deal with individuals


like Nathan Gill and Kirsty Williams or they can talk to the mainstream


parties about being a proper minority government with a set of


policies about which there is consensus. How much would Leanne


Wood like to be first Minister? It would be a minority administration


of some kind, but does that not have some dangers? Yes, and there is


always danger when you take risks in politics but we set up Leanne Wood


as a alternative to Carwyn Jones yesterday. Both parties are talking


about minority administration is, having to deal and negotiate with


other parties in the assembly. Clearly Labour have the largest


number, but they have to have a majority. In a parliamentary system,


we would expect them to try to form a majority of confidence in the


parliament, and that has not happened yet. That is why yesterday


we did not come to an agreement. What kind of arrangements did Plaid


Cymru have with Ukip to get this vote yesterday? None whatsoever. We


told them we were putting up Leanne Wood as First Minister, and they


took their own decision as to whether they would support him or


Leanne Wood. This is the first election since the proper parliament


has been established in Wales, and I think we are starting to be more


interesting. A Plaid Cymru administration would certainly shake


things up. Many may regard this as more interesting. But it could also


be rather unstable if you are dependent on conservative and Ukip


votes. What you have just described, Leanne Wood is a pro Europe


socialist. Depending on the Conservatives and Ukip does not


strike me as a firm base. I think that is a fair point. But neither


does a Labour coalition, with support from the Lib Dems. We saw


yesterday that they cannot you get support. It is beholden of the


opposition to see whether we can reach out and get consensus with


other parties on some of these issues, including the health service


and the steel crisis, things we need to move upon. At the moment we have


to be frank. We did not get a consensus on that yesterday and


neither do the Labour Party. All things should be discussed but I


would be amazed if the Labour Party were prepared to do a deal with an


individual Ukip member like Nathan Gill and it just shows you the level


of desperation of the Labour Party at the moment. We will come back to


you for one minute to mark your card on how do you think this will play


out. It sounds quite obligated. What is your take on this, Olly? It is a


difficult situation. It looks utterly absurd for Plaid Cymru to be


going in there with the consent of Ukip. If there is a split in Ukip,


we're not surprised because they are right back. I was on to say that the


Hamilton was an unexploded bomb but he is a completely exploded bomb. I


think you can expect a lot of interest from the Welsh Assembly. It


does make it interesting. Let me go back to Simon Thomas. Tell us, how


do you think this will work out come up and what will be and when will it


come, the Welsh administration? We have three weeks to agree this,


otherwise there will be a new election. I don't think anyone is


looking for a new election. We are all very well paid, and I think the


people of Wales expect us to reach an agreement. But that agreement has


two reflect that no single party won a majority and it has to reflect


that no single party can rule and have a First Minister and a


government without the consent of at least one other substantial party.


And I think that goes beyond individuals and it is beholden on


Plaid Cymru to talk with other parties, if necessary the other


parties about wider issues including revitalising democracy. Whatever the


government is suggesting we need to hold them to better scrutiny than we


have done in the past. Thank you for joining us. A fascinating situation


in Cardiff. World leaders are meeting


in Central London today for an anti-corruption summit


organised by the British Government. David Cameron says he called


the summit because corruption is "the cancer at the heart


of so many of the world's problems". The Prime Minister has also


announced a raft of policies For example, foreign owners of UK


properties will be forced to join a so-called "public register


of beneficial ownership". That is so that people will be able


to see who is behind the company, who owns that particular property.


Let's hear what the Prime Minister had to say at the summit this


morning. If we want to see countries escape


poverty and become wealthy, we need to tackle corruption. If we want


countries that have great natural resources, to make sure that they


use those to the benefit of their people, we need to tackle


corruption. If we want to defeat terrorism and extremism, we have to


recognise that corruption and lack of access to justice can often be


the way that people are driven towards extremism. So that was the


Prime Minister kicking off the anti-corruption conference.


Martin Tisne is a transparency expert


who's been advising the government on their anti-corruption policies.


He joins us from the summit at Lancaster House in London.


Just down the road from here. Let's come to you right away. What could


be the single most important thing to come out of this summit? I think


the single most important thing to come out of the summit is to have a


change so that we know who the real owners of anonymous companies are.


What we need is to create a global war so it is simply no longer


possible to hide behind a company. -- global law. At this point in time


anonymous companies are getaway car for criminals and terrorists. If you


steal ?100, you can put it under your mattress but if you steal ?10


million, what did you do? You set up an anonymous company and buy a big


house in Notting Hill. The UK commitment is fantastic, which is


that foreign countries seeking to enter into contracts with the UK


government will need to disclose their owners are. The real point of


the summit is to have systematic global action on this, so that we


change the law. Otherwise the risk is a game of whack a mole. We do it


and others don't and the companies will register in other


jurisdictions. This is a really exciting moment, the first time in


the 21st century that global leaders at a high level have come together


specifically to fight corruption. Last year the New York Times


reported that 85 billion pounds of property had been bought in London


alone with cash. Would what is being proposed bring more transparency to


transactions like that? Absolutely. I think there are two things going


on here. Transparency is good but not in and of itself. What we need


is prevention. So we are hoping that it will make it much less likely


that it will act as a deterrent for those who are using these ill gotten


gains, this cash to buy properties in London and elsewhere. But the


second point is equally important. We are hoping that we will have


information not only on the real owners of companies but also on


contracts. 60% of bribes in the whole world come from public


contracting. Those companies, much of the money comes from public


contracts and so that is why we welcome the announcement by the UK


and also by the Nigerian government to shine a light on public


contracts. That means that the information will go to the right


people at the right time in the right format, and leads to


corruption prosecutions. There are two angles, prevention, deterrence,


people will be less likely to buy properties in London with money from


ill gotten gains, and also law enforcement, journalists and other


bodies will be able to piece together the information. Who owns


the company? How is the money spent to avoid prosecution? That is what


is absolutely clear and the exciting thing coming out of this. So to take


your example of the expensive property in Notting Hill. At the


moment, all we know is that this ?25 million house has been bought by the


no name company. So after these changes, we find out that it is


owned by John Smith or some other name. How do we then establish that


John Smith's money is corrupt? This is exactly it. That is the point. Mr


Smith owns a company that owns a big house in Notting Hill but what we


then need to know is where did that money come from? That company, what


other companies is it related to? This is why we are excited to have


France and the Netherlands and other countries commit to public


registries so we need to know what company they are connected with. But


he has probably not brought the money in from France or Holland, has


he? No, So how do we find out? We've


information on whole real owners of those companies are in a global


register of beneficial owners of companies so we can trace the chain.


Many times these companies go through 12, 13, changes of


companies. We find the beneficial owner. That's the one at the end of


the chain, not in the middle of the chain. We know where the money came


from because we've information on public contracts in Nigeria, the UK


and elsewhere. Stick with us. One final question. What do you make of


this, Polly? It's an excellent move. High time. It is sad America and


Britain wagged their fingers the whole time at the Third World for


corruption and we don't shut every door we could. The Cayman Islands


refuse the parities pace. In America, Delaware is one of the


great tax evasions. And Nevada. We should do that first. Through those


places comes a great deal of this corruption. We could turn off the


taps immediately to the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands.


The Government says it is not democratic. We could tell our banks


you will not deal with money from those countries, we do not trust it.


The whole financial industry would be dead. General de Gaulle, when he


was angry at Monaco for their tax cheating, he surrounded the place


with troops and turned off their water supply. We could do the same


by turning off their banking supply. Going back to being their colonial


masters? They have to be transparent. Britain are taking


certain positions. There are like-minded countries at that summit


behind you. Maybe not all like-minded. Most of the countries


in the word are not represented there. How far away are we from a


register of beneficial ownership being global? I understand the logic


of that. It would seem to me that will be very difficult to do and


we're probably quite a long way away from it? I think there's two things


here. This is a really big step in the right direction towards having a


global registry of beneficial owners. And the summit very much is


about both the developed and developing countries tackling this


global issue together. In order, you're right, there are 40 countries


coming to the summit today, one of the next staging posts of global


summit of open Government partnership in December in Paris,


the open Government partnership brings together 70 countries. If we


had all those members commit we would have 70 countries in the


world. We would be a long way or a closer way to building a global norm


to fight the scourge of corruption. Thank you for joining us from the


anti-corruption summit at Lancaster House in London


Now, the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has been outlining


the government's plans for the future of the BBC this morning.


The BBC's Royal Charter - the agreement which sets


the broadcaster's rules and purpose - expires in December.


And today's White Paper outlines how the corporation will be run


Let's take a look at the main proposals:


The Trust governing the BBC will be abolished and a new board set up


Culture Secretary John Whittingdale said this will create a "new, strong


unitary board" in charge of the BBC with some government appointments,


but at least half the board members decided by the BBC.


Ofcom will become the BBC's external regulator and arbitrate on


impartiality and accuracy complaints.


And the BBC will release details of the salaries of stars


The licence fee - which is currently set at ?145.50 a year -


It will rise in line with inflation for the next five years.


In future, -- 202 I 2 viewers will need to pay the licence fee


to use BBC iPlayer - closing a loophole which allowed


The charter renewal period will be extended from 10 to 11 years,


to make sure any future decisions about the BBC


will not clash with election campaigns.


And the new charter will "enshrine diversity" measures


to ensure the BBC reflects its audiences on and off screen.


Let's take a look at what the Culture Secretary has said


The new charter will create a unitary board for the BBC that has a


much clearer separation of governance and regulation. The board


will be responsible for ensuring that the BBC's strategy, activity


and output are in the public interest and accord to the mission


and purposes set out in the charter. Editorial decisions will remain the


responsibility of the Director General and his editorial


independence will be explicitly enshrined in the charter while the


unitary board will consider any issues or complaints which arise


post transmission. That was John Whittingdale issuing a statement


very different from much of the speculation that has gone on


beforehand about what was in store for the BBC. Let's speak to Damian


Green, chairman of the parliamentary all-partiy group of the BBC. Didn't


know we had one. And foal low Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen. A


critic What's not to like about this? Not a


lot. The only shock is they don't pay you more than 4 #50?,000. It is


an outrage. Probably the first thing you and I have ever agreed about.


Thank you for that! It is broadly sensible. The key thing for me was


maintaining the BBC's editorial independence. There were a lot of


scare stories,er certainly things that sounded Luke crews, including


not allowing the BBC to make popular programmes at peak times. But also


this thought that the Government would appoint a majority of the new


board members. That's gone away. Clearly a majority of the board


members will be appointed by the BBC. The Director General will be


explicitly alone responsible for editorial content. That seems to


preserve the independence of BBC which is the cornerstone of its


appeal. Andrew, has John Whittingdale bottled it? I don't


think so. It is a good White Paper. One of my problems with the BBC is


the lack of trust in the BBC Trust. You can't have your regulator as


your biggest cheerleader. Off cock being brought in to deal with


regulation and complaints, that's all very healthy. So, you have no


reservations about what's being proposed? Because it bears no


resemblance to many of the ideas that were floated in the run up to


this White Paper when all sorts of things were meant to be in play for


the BBC? Well, as you know, I favoured decriminalisation that led


to the David Perry review. It was concluded that the BBC could not


cope with decriminalisation and the effect it would have on its revenue


stream. We have to be pragmatic. The changes we have here are opening the


door to closing the judicial loophole, iPlayer. The BBC accident'


get all it wanted. Most people can charge for the goods and services


they provide. Sometimes the BBC think they can charge for what their


rivals provide. The BBC wanted people to buy a license if they


accessed through iPlayer etc. That was reisted by the Government.


Damian, there will be concerns inside the BBC about Ofcom


regulation and even the National Audit Office, what exactly the


detail operational detail it may be able to reveal of things the BBC may


think is private. If you step back from all of that, is it not


remarkable that the licence fee, which 15 years ago many people


thought would not really have much longer to go, hoes now been


enshrined and largely linked to inflation for another 11 years. It's


there now until the middle of the next decade at the very least. That


is quite a remarkable result, is it not? Historically, completely


remarkable. I remember in the 1990s, I advised the BBC for a time in the


run up to a charter review. It was a given then because of the internet


and all that was about to happen that certainly by 2006, nobody


thought the BBC licence fee would be sustainable. Here we are, it will


still be there in 2027. What's happened is classic British Prague


fattism. If you're inventing a theoretical system you would try to


fund public service broadcasting some other way not through the


license knee. Because it broadly works, by and large the BBC is a


hugely important national institution, widely loved in this


country. Wyely respected around the world. Actually, doing anything to


damage it would be an act of cultural vandalism. We end up with


anomalies like the licence fee. It was once called worse than the poll


tax? Something worse than the poll tax will enshrine in law and index


link to inflation for five or six years, the inflation bit and the


licence fee for another 11 years. Worse than the poll tax for another


11 years. It is the last gas for the licence fee. It doesn't matter what


the Government funding mechanisms. It is about the ninth last gasp over


the years. Technology would move forward and will drive the demands


of the consumer. That's what I was told at the end of the la charter


renewal. After this charter renewal people will be streaming their


content online and the BBC can charge for their iPlayer services.


They need to charge for that service around the world and bring the back


cat lot of BBC World online and use it as a revenue stream. That will be


the revenue stream by the end of this charter review. Should all


these luvvies that turned the BAFTA awards into a north Korean Communist


Party rally get back in their box? Basically, yes. All those who were


saying this would be terrible and this Government was going to destroy


the BBC, actually, wrong. Go and read the White Paper. Hear what the


BBC say. This gives the BBC the chance to carry on doing what it


does, what people love, for another ten years with a stable, if slightly


anone louse funding regime, which broadly speaking works. It is not


like the poll tax. I doubt the Secretary of State or Government


will get an apology from the luvvies any time soon. That's also possibly


true. We've Richard Wilson on This Week tonight. We'll see. Andrew is


happy overall with what's happened. Are you sure you're happy? It is the


best deal the Secretary of State could have cut begin the situation.


I like the idea of a health check after five years. It has to work.


The BBC has huge power. It needs accountability. It is getting the


thick end of four billion of taxpayers' money. They deserve more


transparency and accountability from the BBC. If it's not, this won't be


the solution. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Polly, I would


suggest what's happened here, I've lived through it several times,


Governments come into power. They're determined to do something about the


BBC. I remember John Major telling me he was going to do it in 1992. Mr


Whittingdale seems to want to do it this time. Even Harold Wilson wanted


to do something to the BBC. What happens is, more important events


take over and even if it was the right thing to do, it is just not


worth the candle? Don't underestimate what has happened to


the BBC. Doesn't surprise me flakey rebels on the Tory side are backing


off. Which one? Andrew Br architis dge negotiation. No, Damian Green.


Andrew has it right. Got most of what he wants. There was a decoy out


there. We'll decide how to scheduled bake-off and Strictly. What really


matters is governance. Never before has the BBC's day-to-day running,


its editorial decision-making, been run by political appointees. It is


not. It will be enshrined in the BBC who will be given special protection


to be independent. The board, will not be able to get involved in


editorial matters until after anything has been broadcast, which


was the situation under the governance. Nevertheless, it's far


closer. There is only one board. That's what it used to be like. They


are making decisions about deployments of all kinds. Before, it


was are arm's length. A peculiar brand of... The Government appointed


all the trustees. Trust was none on... They appointed the governors


before the days of the treesees. The majority of people on this board


will be appointed by the BBC. The Government will have no say over


these appointees? Do you think the BBC will appoint six anti-Government


people? Of course they won't. Boards are not like that. They may appoint


six independent people. Who's independent? Everyone has their own


views. They'll appoint a balance, the BBC is very balanced. The


Government gets to a to appoint six people to this board. The chairman,


vice-chairman, four from the nations and regions. They'll have to go


through the northern procedures. Gone are the days where the Home


Secretary calls up his best mate from school. Then the BBC, with the


DG leading the way, gets to a point more than six.


But they will not necessarily be anti-government people. You seem to


be denying that the government is now a huge step closer to the


day-to-day running of the BBC than it ever has been in the past. We


never had to put up with this. But it is the job of the management


committee, not the board, the job of the executive management committee


to run the BBC's day-to-day business. The board will not run it


like that. But you are closer than ever. Chris Patten has the right


idea. He said that these important bodies, Channel 4, Ofcom, the BBC,


where editorial decisions are being made, the appointments should be


made by an independent commission like you have an independent


commission for appointing judges, away from government. The head of


Ofcom, and all of these other broadcasting bodies, should be


decided entirely independently by a separate commission. Then we would


know... Do you think this is a bad deal for the BBC? I think it is a


worse deal than it looks. Ofcom is now run by a reputable civil servant


but at any point the government could put in somebody else, as they


did with the charities commission. Can I just point out that the BBC


will have a majority of people on the board. There will be no


scheduling at all. There will be no change in the budget deal that has


already been done. The licence fee is there for another 11 years. It is


index-linked and there is a remit to increased adversity. There is more


pressure for the BBC to be distinct, which is what public service


broadcasting is. And there is a special independent protection for


the Director General. No top sizing and nonpayment of the licence fee is


still an offence. True. These are things that have not changed. They


have not undermine the BBC. I think the BBC is undermined by the nature


of it all, by direct political appointees. I also think it is


somewhat undermined by putting it under Ofcom, which is a competition


regulator. The BBC is not in a commercial market. Others have to


sail along beside it as best they can. But it is in a market. Not


really. The idea that lawyers from outside broadcasting would come in


and challenge Ofcom to say that the BBC is anti-competitive on this or


that or the other. That is a real new arena. The idea that they are


told they must be distinctive takes us back. Then, should they really be


doing strictly? It is looking at the BBC as if they should be doing only


the things that nobody else wants to do. That is not what distinctive


means. I'm not sure what the point of public service broadcasting is if


you are supposed to be distinctive. It is distinctive and it is the best


at what it does on the whole. All eyes may have been on London's


election at the weekend. But about 100 miles


west of the capital, another race for Mayor


was playing out. And it was another success


for Labour, as Marvin Rees was elected to the top


job in Bristol. After two rounds of voting, he won


by a majority of around 30,000 votes, and ousted the incumbent


independent Mayor George Ferguson. So who is Marvin Rees and what does


his new role allowed him to do? Well, he is 43 and he was raised and


born in Bristol. He is married with three children, and in a former life


he was a journalist, so we can to be a bad person at all. He worked in


public health before switching to politics. No mayor of the city, his


responsibility is for local transport policy, housing and local


spending. So quite a lot of important things that matter to the


people of Bristol. His annual salary will be about ?65,000. And he joins


me now. Welcome. Were you expecting to win? I think the omens were good.


And what we heard on the doorsteps and the streets. And I think that we


anticipated that with a higher turnout, we would stand a stronger


chance of winning. How strong pitch, because we had this period of time


where you were an independent mayor, independent of major parties, is


that being seen as a success or, given that the people have returned


to a party nominee, was that an aberration? I think a number of


people came to question what independence meant. There is no such


thing as independent thought, really. I don't want to pick over


the bones of my predecessor because he has been very gracious moving on,


but I think there was an element of disappointment between the level of


delivery and the promise that was made, that politics would be


transformed. I think real political transformation is not just about


abandoning political parties, it is about new people from a wider range


of backgrounds taking a position of influence. In a sense, we're


beginning to see this happen with Sadiq Khan's Victorian London, and


your own victory in Bristol. There are new faces to British politics in


the 21st century. I think so. And that does not pass me by. Sadiq Khan


is the son of a bus driver. As he has told us several times! Was your


dad a bus rather? I will not say what my dad did. He was a guy in


town. My mum lived in a refuge for a while. Looking at the report an


elitist Britain, I should not be here. But that is one of the reasons


why I am here, because I do not want a city that is built on chance. And


it may be that local government or elected mayors is a way of doing


that. I said this to Andy Burnham once, when he was running as mayor


of Manchester. We have a picture viewer Jeremy Corbyn, who came down


to see you before the victory. Was he an asset or a liability for you


on the doorstep? I would say he was incredibly supportive. And in terms


of my motivation, he was absolutely supportive. Bristol is a diverse


city and in some areas, Jeremy had incredible traction and in other


areas, he did not have so much traction. Overall, his contribution


to the campaign was incredibly positive and I am grateful for the


support from him. Why do you think he came to see you rather than Sadiq


Khan? I will not take the question away. I welcome anyone to come to


Bristol. Where would you rather be on a sunny day, in Bristol or smoky


London? We see a lot of this through the prism of the London mayoral


campaign. And we always have had big figures, Ken Livingstone, Boris


Johnson, how much was this about you as an individual? And how much was


it you as the Labour candidate? It was a lot about me. It was my


frustration in the last campaign, with this whole thing of


independence. I never crossed the line and ceased to be Marvin who has


my background and my network of friends, I was a guy who joined the


Labour Party in my mid 30s, and took up the challenge of getting elected,


to make things happen through electoral politics. And that element


of my appeal outside the party boundaries brought me incredible


support and sometimes costly challenges. Was I really Labour or


was I a guy who jumped on the train late in the game? I think the Labour


Party is about people coming together around shared values. The


values of my upbringing are the values that I found among people in


the party and I can rally with them and try to get things done for


people left behind. We will see how it goes. It is an exciting time.


Thank you very much. Time now for the answer to


our question. I forgot to brief Polly on its! What


rule has been overturned? B) Allowing people to throw


underwear on stage? C) Allowing the show to be presented


by yours truely? D) Repealing its ban


on the Welsh flag? Do you have an idea, Polly? I don't


think it is knickers. It is perhaps the Welsh flag. It is. Apparently it


was revealed on the Daily Politics that there was a revealed that there


had to be nation state flags are supposed to national flags, like the


Scottish sole tyre. I'm sorry it is not you replacing Terry Wogan. It


would be fun but now one can replace Terry Wogan. He alone was the reason


for watching it. So, as you have seen from our quiz,


politics and passions run particularly high


round Eurovision time. This year, even more so, as the EU


Referendum hangs over the contest. If we do get 'nil points' again,


is this a message that we're not wanted in the Union, or shall we


just put it down to With us now is Chris West,


who's written a definitive book on the politics of Eurovision,


and BBC presenter Paddy O'Connell who's in Stockholm covering


the competition for BBC radio. Chris West, are you going to be nice


to the UK this year? I think so. I think we have a good song, and good


singers. So yes, I think they are going to do OK. You think we might


have a chance of maybe not winning but still high up there are? Top


ten, very well. Paddy, you are our man in Stockholm. What is the mood


among the competition? Is the referendum being talked about?


Notice was ugly but there are echoes. Every year there is a leave


remain argument about the contest. This year, Russia is controversial.


They are not sending in a bare-chested Vladimir Putin, the


ascending in a younger man. And the bookies say that they were when. So


the Russians are the -- so the Russians are the favourite?


Interesting. Stockholm is one of the internet capitals of Europe but


clearly, with our connection, not today. You have written about the


soft power of Eurovision. That it is a strong political force and will


betide any country that ignores it. What do you mean by that? If it was


a country like Sweden, over the last ten years, they have put themselves


forward as a progressive, creative and well organised, competent


country. They have done very well, they have had very good singers.


Their entry in 2012 has sold records around the world. I'm sure my age


with records! Downloads, whatever. There is a lot of good stuff about


Sweden that comes through the Eurovision Song contest. Are the


Swedes happy to host this? It is a huge expense. It is a very expensive


events to mount. It is. They are even joking about it from the stage.


There is a lot of irony on the stage about how expensive it has been. And


they take six weeks to nick their national entry here, so in a way


they will be quite happy to bump along the next few years. And do you


go along with the bookies favourite? If it is not the Russians, who are


the other two or three that we should keep an eye on? I love


Austria because they are singing in French, it is a French song. And


Chris is nodding. We will keep an eye on Austria as well. And if you


like country music, the Netherlands, the artist is basically singing


British, and the whole contest is bonkers than ever. There are more


thighs on the stage than now knows. -- Nandos.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be on This Week with Alan Johnson, Michael Portillo,


and DJ Annie Nightingale joining me from 11.45pm tonight.


And I'll be back here at noon tomorrow with all the big political


Drinking small amounts of alcohol isn't without risk.


Eat more of this, drink more of that -


can we really eat and drink our way to better health?


Because my mother had dementia, there's always that anxiety -


Download Subtitles