06/06/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


As the polls tighten, there's been an escalation


of hostilities in the EU referendum battle, with both sides moving


The Leave campaign says the UK faces a "triple whammy of woe" if it


The Remain campaign says they're conning the British public.


The temperature in the campaign just keeps on rising.


Government plans for how the state, police and spies access our personal


But is the Bill vital for our national security


or an unnecessary intrusion on personal freedom?


David Cameron has called for an all-out assault on poverty


and says he wants to create a true meritocracy.


I'll be discussing the European issue that everyone should be


talking about it no-one is, farm subsidies.


All that in the next hour, and with me for the whole


of the programme today, the Conservative MP Mark Field


Almost matching ties! That is the only thing that is matching!


First today, in the last half hour Vote Leave have been outlining some


of their key economic arguments for leaving the EU.


Speaking at an event in Stratford-upon-Avon,


Boris Johnson says Britain will be "forced to hand over even


more money" if voters opt to stay in the EU.


And that the economy was Leave's only argument.


They want to say that we are selling democracy, because that is what we


believe them, and they say they are selling economic 's. They think they


have the stronger hand there. That is basically because on their side


of the argument they totally get that we are winning all the


Democratic points. If you look at what is going on in our country and


around the EU, the European Commission is unelected and there is


concern about the way that operates, the European Parliament... Does


anybody know the name of their Euro MP?


Well, the Prime Minister has also been out and about this morning.


He joined leading figures from the left of British politics,


Labour's Harriet Harman, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron and


And the Prime Minister took aim at the Leave campaign


They are performing an economic con trick on the British people, and we


are calling time on it. We publish the full extent of this, comedy


dossier we publish outlines the various and often contradictory


positions that they have held on the economy. Those that want us to leave


want to leave the single market. We don't know what terms of access they


will get instead, the dossier shows they lurch from one idea to another.


First they said we should be like Norway, then Canada, then Albania,


then America, and they have taken us from Iceland to the Isle of Man and


Morocco and Moldova. This morning's crossfire comes


after an extraordinarily personal attack on leading figures


in the Leave campaign by the former Here he is on The Andrew


Marr Show yesterday. I do find it very difficult


to understand how Boris can justify the ?350 million that he has


on his battle bus, that he and Michael Gove have


defended time and again. You know, I know, the IFS knows,


everyone knows, Boris knows, that the real net amount


that we send to Europe The concept that the people running


the Brexit campaign would care for the National Health Service


is a rather odd one. I seem to remember Michael Gove


wanted to privatise it, Boris wanted to charge people


for using it and Iain Duncan Smith The NHS is about as safe as them


as a pet hamster would be Last night on the Westminster Hour


on Radio 4, the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who is voting


to leave the EU, hit What we have had today were a bitter


ramblings of a vengeful man. But he's the man who took us


into the exchange rate mechanism, destroyed hundreds of thousands


of jobs, had people evicted from their homes and led


to the destruction of businesses for the sake of his


failed European policy. And now he says things that are both


hypocritical and untrue How magnanimous Boris was in saying


we should rise above it. I'm going to sling the mud straight


back at Sir John Major, the Knight of the Garter who ought


to know how to behave better. Amidst that, John Major unleashed a


torrent of vitriol yesterday at tempted campaigners -- Leave


campaigners, especially saying that leaving the NHS in decades would be


like leaving a pet hamster with a hungry python. There are a lot of


descriptions that have been going on, I fear we will see more. I have


long team a believer in what Ronald Reagan once said, he would speak ill


of no other fellow Conservative, and I think that applies to Douglas, as


far as I am concerned. You are in a diminishing group. It is aborted to


play the ball and not the man. There are some important issues. Everyone


would agree this is more important than any single general election,


the most important vote we have had in our lifetime to date. John Major


of all people have the most provocation, given the difficulties


he faced as Prime Minister, the frustration boiled over yesterday.


Was he justified? I would not have made it personal. There were strong


emotional argument. I disagree with Boris Johnson, it is not just about


economics, the interests of the UK have to be considered, we played an


important part in rebuilding Europe, which seemed as broken as the middle


east is today, we have friends and as, and there is interest matter as


well. The message coming in loud and clear is they desperately want the


UK to stay in and play its part in reforming it. How worried are you


that the Tory party is tearing itself apart? I would prefer to look


at the issues. Like a lot of MPs, I am worried, partly because amongst


the backbenches we have a cordial relationship, I have been good


humoured, a lot of joshing, but what we see from the prominent figures is


something that is upsetting many of us. Our activists across the


country, I feel for Dan Watkins, our candidate in tooting, how he must be


feeling, trying to make the case for the party, when these arguments take


place. Jacob Rees-Mogg as a backbencher, he has been mudslinging


as well. Let's look at this other than through the prism of the


internal dynamics of the Tory party. We have seen some strident negative


language coming out of Downing Street. The Prime Minister talked


about a bomb under the British economy. The Leave campaign has


outlined an optimistic alternative. Because we are outlining an up the


alternative, with five pledges about how we can make things better, we


are beginning to win the argument. Warning about 76 million Turks is


positive and optimistic? It is the truth. If you have pressure on the


public services at the moment... How many Turks have passports at the


moment? 7 million. I am just throwing that out. 80 million people


will soon have the right to settle here if they join the EU. The risks


of Remain are many. One is that we will have unrestricted migration. We


already have 450 million people with a legal right to settle here. At an


extra 80 million people... They don't have the right to settle here.


The onus is on the Remain campaign to explain the risks. There are


risks that we see on our shores in the last few days. What if the


answer to having hundreds of Albanians coming onto our shores? We


signed up to a lot of international conventions that nothing to do with


the EU. The notion we can get rid of people, secure our borders and make


them safe, is a fallacy. The Turkish thing, I have always had my doubts


about whether Turkey should join the EU, many Turkish politicians are


less keen on it than they were five or ten years ago, but it would be


vetoed first by the Greeks and Cypriots and French and Germans. Why


are we spending 2 billion preparing for red? One of the risks of


remaining is that Turkey joins and we have to pay more. That is the


risk. I don't think we can afford it. Let's talk about the NHS. The


claim made by John Major, he pointed out that Michael Gove wanted to


privatise it, response to charge people for using it, Iain Duncan


Smith wanted social insurance. How would you manage it? I have defended


the local NHS in four elections, I have earned the right to be heard.


It is vital. If we vote to leave, we could spend an extra 100 million


every week. If the Government decides. We both know that whether


it is seven, eight or 10 billion a year we will save by not being in


the EU, it is a minuscule amount in terms of a Budget of ?900 billion a


year. We are already overspending, living beyond our means, we will


borrow 75, ?80 billion this year. The notion that this money will go


straight into the health service is a myth. That is the claim, the ?350


million. Let's be clear, it is a gross figure, around half of that


comes back in terms of rebate, and there are pots of money and payments


that go to things like agriculture. If I let you ?50 and you give me ?25


back, I have given you ?25 of. We give a gross contribution. If you


look at the net contribution, we suggest that 5.2 billion, 100


million per week, should go on the NHS, 2 billion on taking the 80 off


fuel bills. That is money we are giving to Brussels. Improving the


NHS and taking money off fuel. He may be against the money for the


NHS, but we are in favour of it. We have heard about VAT on fuel. Ed


Miliband two years ago. These are the populist quickfire so-called


solutions. There was an EU directive that means we cannot do anything


about it. If we vote to leave, we can, we can remove VAT from fuel by


voting to leave. The EU directive prevents us from doing that. The


bigger concern I have... The idea that we will remove ourselves from


the single market, I speak to businesses, they are very worried.


Maybe they struggle to pay their fuel bills. I know why Leave went


down that path, because it is the only way in which you can square the


circle for immigration, but it is a very serious prospect, the idea that


we remove ourselves from the trade deals. The single market is one of


the greatest successes that the EU has, 500 million people. It is not


succeeding. More work will have to be done. Part of the reform that


goes forward is to make sure it is rolled out for public services as


well. We will discuss this further. The question for today is,


who of the following is not related Is it a) Boris Johnson,


b) Harriet Harman, c) At the end of the show,


Mark or Douglas will give Neither of us are related,


incidentally! Have you checked? Government plans to overhaul


the laws governing how the state, police and spies can access


communications and other forms of data head back


to the Commons this afternoon. The Investigatory Powers Bill


is the last big piece of legislation The Bill, championed


by the Home Secretary Theresa May, aims to give new powers


to the police and security services, particularly


around the bulk collection It also wants to give the system


more oversight by setting up a commission made up


of senior judges. One of these judges will have


the power to approve or decline warrants for the most-intrusive


investigations, like hacking The privacy safeguards in the Bill


were boosted earlier this year after it was criticised


by three committees of MPs. After the changes, the authorities


will only be able to access people's internet records when it's


"necessary and proportionate" One of the most-controversial


aspects is a clause that requires phone and internet companies to keep


a record of the websites visited by every citizen for 12 months,


which could then be viewed The Shadow Home Secretary Andy


Burnham set out six areas of concern on behalf of Labour,


but the party then abstained on the Bill when it was


last in the Commons. And last week, a report


by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired


by Labour's Harriet Harman, said the new powers would not be not


"inherently incompatible" with privacy rights, as long


as certain safeguards were met. We are joined by Keir Starmer. The


last time this Bill was in the Commons, Labour abstained. What


about this time? We have been clear from the start that a new law is


needed to update the powers but also because after the Snowdon


revelations, it's very important that the powers being exercised are


on the face of a statute with proper safeguards but it's got to be the


right Bill. We have consistently made demands of the Government to


improve the safeguards and we have been working over the last month,


two months in the Bill committee to achieve the safeguards. In fairness


to the Government they have met our demand in a number of key concerns,


so there is going to be a review of the bulk powers, the wide powers,


carried out by David Unston QC. The Government's conceded on that. Does


that mean Labour will support the Bill? There are six outstanding


issues. There were six before so when you say there's been movement?


One is split into two but they are basically the same issues we have


been clear on. OK. They include for example the Trade Union Who engage


in activity shouldn't be spied on and the Government are with us in


principle on that. The debate this afternoon will be critical. On


Internet connection records, we have been clear there must be a


seriousness of offence before there must be access so we have had a


consistent set of demands and also want an overarching privacy clause


so that every time a decision is made under the Act, privacy is seen


as a key consideration. Do you consider this bulk use of data or


surveillance as an intrusion into one's privacy? Yes, it is, the


question is whether it can be justified. It's an important right


but it's not an absolute right. Exactly. The question is, is any


invasion necessary and is it proportionate? On that key question


is it necessary, that's why we have demanded a review so the operational


case can be looked at and a view taken on whether the powers are


there and are needed. The bulk powers have always been there to a


certain extent though? The vast majority have but this is the first


time Parliament's had chances to look at them. Before Snowdon, we


didn't know anything about these powers, so this is an important


moment because post-Snowdon, we have to decide, do we put them on the


statute book with safeguards or use the old regime, vague powers without


safeguards and I think we need to look guard. I prefer to see


something codified, there is too much confusion about the legislation


that can potentially apply. We shouldn't be naive about this. The


truth of the matter is, this is going to need constant updating. The


idea you can future proof a Bill and not come back to it, I don't think


that would be great. That is why the privacy clauses are there and we


have been arguing so hard that the Home Secretary must give on this.


However things change in the future, privacy is always a key


consideration. That's fundamental. Do you accept the Government has


been dragged to this point a bit? When it started out, and we have


been doing interviews about this Bill for quite some time, that


actually a lot of what they were asking really was more than just an


invasion, intrusion in privacy, in some cases would be counted as


almost illegal? In fairness, I was on the intelligence and community


panel so we were aware of what was disclosed by Snowdon and I think


that was a real scene-setter and changer and in part because global


communication service providers, the Googles of this world, they of


course had a cosy relationship with Governments and Security Services


across the world and they now demand global protocols. That I think is


one of the things that is going to emerge here. The one concern I have


is around encryption. The Government's talked about the idea


of trying to weaken tripping to radio fill and that will be


difficult to do. Are you happy at the moment with the way the balance


is between the Security Services? Keir makes some really important


points. There are people out there, and every conversation about this


has to start in recognition, there are people who wish us ill and it's


right that the state can in effect snoop, the question is who zwroefr


sees the people overseeing this -- oversees the people. I've tabled an


amendment so that the commissioner is approved by Parliament. If the


Government accepts that, I he vote for the legislation, if they won't,


I vent. Is that a good idea? I think the oversight is critically


important. I've seen this both sides of the argument, I spent 20 years as


a human rights lawyer. I then spent five years as the Director of Public


Prosecution working with the intelligence Security Committee.


Oversight by judicial commissioners is important. Will you support my


amendment? I'll support yours if you support mine? The Prime Minister's


involvement is needed in that, there is a need for an independence of


appointment so in principlee. How they're appointed is critically


important 679 this is a real chance to get it right. The ball is in the


Government's court now. Do you think we are going to need judges in this


area? Are you saying they are not any there? An elite... Would you


trust the Home Secretary to do it then? If they are accountable to


Parliament. If Parliament has a confirmation hearing and can say no


to one... You would say no judges? I like the idea of having judges but I


think the House of Commons should have the ultimate ability to say no.


One of the complaints was there are so many of these requests that


actually how much time is going to be given by the person? This is a


very important issue. We are pressing hard. I've said close


scrutiny. The judges have got to see the material before the Secretary of


State or the Foreign Secretary and they've got to exercise close


scrutiny and they've got to grapple with the substance, not just the


process. That's one of my demands for this afternoon so watch the


debate. And you won't support it without that? We have been clear


what our demands are, it's really for the Government now. We know


where they stand on this. If we are going to move to a scloeser


scrutiny, more substance than process, that would be a very


significant move. The Government are taking this seriously. So so they


will give in? They will. Unusually you have the Home Secretary herself


who will be there. As opposed to a junior minister. That is a


reflection of how important they look upon these issues. You said


about the seriousness of the offence, what counts in your mind as


serious enough to warrant that? Usually we measure seriousness by


the length of prison sentence, whether bit six months two years,


three years, on this occasion we need to be more subtle. Groups are


anxious that the powers should be there if cases that concern them in


stalking. It's a subtle exercise. The point we are making is, if you


are going to use Internet connection records, you have got to be sure


it's not content an you have to make sure it's a serious enough case, not


just any case. This must never be used to get people for re'tilly


minor offences. Which was the complaint by local authorities? Yes.


Low level offences ought to be out. That will have to be clear in the


wording then. Lots to discuss this afternoon and tomorrow.


In the run-up to the referendum, we've offered politicians


from all the main parties the chance to take to their soapboxes and make


short films on the case for either Remain or Leave.


Before the half-term recess we heard the Conservative cases


Today it's the turn of Ukip and the SNP.


In a moment we'll hear from the SNP's Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh,


But first here's our guest of the day, Douglas Carswell,


with his film on the case for leaving the EU.


Every week we hand over ?350 million to Brussels.


That is enough to build more than 50 NHS hospitals a year.


Imagine what we could do with that money if we voted to leave the EU.


We would have more schools, health care and public services.


Being in the EU means we lose control, not just over our money,


Over 500 million EU citizens have an automatic right


Our Government is powerless to decide how many people come in.


Let's vote Leave to take back control of our borders.


We discover the people we elect don't answer to us, they stop


being on our side, they do what they are told by Brussels.


The EU is failing, it can't control its borders,


manage its currency, it could not handle the debt crisis.


Remaining is the high-risk thing to do.


Vote Leave, it is the safest thing for our country.


We'll pick Douglas' brains more in just a moment.


But first, here's the SNP MP, Tasmina Sheikh, making the case


Scotland's membership of the EU has been beneficial


in building a safer, stronger society, a more prosperous


For the last 60 years the EU has played a key role in building


Our direct access to this huge market of 500 million people


is good for our economy, for inward investment and for


European laws guarantee Scottish workers' rights.


They protect our entitlement to have paid holidays and ensure


all workers, men and women, part-time and agency,


The Tories want to turn back the clock on progressive


We know Michael Gove feels the EU has acted as a handbrake


on the plans of the current UK Government, and that is why we must


do everything we can to retain our membership.


I want a Europe that supports economic growth


and champions human rights, and which promotes solidarity


and the social contract which exists between states and their citizens.


And Tasmina joins us now in the studio.


You said in your film there that you want to protect workers' rights. Why


do we have to remain in the EU to protect workers' rights? Because


that's been the foundation of the protection for many years. Which


ones? If you look at the contrary position where if we leave the EU


where we might be left, that is in a position where the Conservative


Party who's in Government have unfettered control over workers'


rights and the Trade Union Bill is one example of that where we have


seen the erosion of the rights and the erosion of Trade Unions and


their works. The rights are in relation to paternity, maternity pay


and protected in relation to discrimination in the baulk place.


You say they would go? We have had enough indications from the way the


Tory Government have been behaving even since I've been elected that


that is highly likely. What guarantees can you give workers


that their rights will not disappear if the UK leaves the E Snitch


Because their rights were introduced by an elected British Government.


I'm not advocate for the Labour Party but it was a Labour Party in


1999 that introduced a national minimum wage, a Labour Government


that introduced maternity cover, maternity rights are higher in the


UK than the EU. Would they be protected? Could a Government roll


back the rights? I don't think they would. Would is not the same as


could. Could they unravel some of those protections for employers?


It's the European Union. At the moment that I would say is


frustrating the rights of workers. Big corporations frustrate the


ability of workers in the EU to enjoy the sort of rights they enjoy


in the UK today. It's the EU that is run in the interests of big


corporate vested interests, not working people. Right but


Euro-sceptics often cite burdensome EU regulation as something they want


to get rid of so what would you like to see? If we left all regulations,


it would become British... All of them. So what are you worried about?


I asked that question to Government ministers in the despatch box in the


run-up to where we are now, I said that because specifically Michael


Gove has been prevented from doing things he'd like to because of EU


legislation and I asked what specific piece of legislation are


you referring to and they have been unable to provide me with an answer.


This speaks to the debate in which we find ourselves, rhetoric in fear


mongering statistics. You are talking about VAT. In terms of your


voting record, you voted consistently over a long time to


increase VAT in our national Parliament. That is simply not the


case. I believe in lower taxes. Have you voted on that issue? Have you


voted against or for I should say increases in VAT? I voted to reduce


tax. On VAT? No, I want to reduce VAT and I voted in the three


previous budgets for measures that would reduce the tax. You voted all


the way up to 20%, you voted to increase. Would you like to see


higher or lower rates of migration to the UK?


This debate has plummeted to the depths of negative rhetoric. Would


you like to see higher or lower? If we can see that immigration


contributes, it is a good thing. You happy? Looking at migration in and


out, 2.6 people have come in and 2.2 million have left. Of the migrants


that are here and Roger booting, they contribute ?55 per second. This


nonsense they are a drain on the economy needs to be dealt with, we


need to look at the positive effects. They are welcome in


Scotland. This has descended in England to a debate about


immigration, because the statistics in Scotland are different. Let's


talk about the numbers. Are the numbers the critical part of the


debate on immigration? It is to do with control. 500 million people


have a legal right to come here, 2.5 million came here in the last four


years. It is right we have control. Does it mean bringing down the


numbers? The risk of remaining is we have no control. If we vote to


leave, we can elect a Government that can tell us how much we are


going to reduce immigration by. People have said David Cameron would


reduce immigration, but no Government can do that unless we


vote to leave. Which is higher, those from outside the EU or those


from within the EU? If we had an Australian points -based system...


But there are more people coming from outside the EU at the moment.


And that is every year since we joined the EU. We cannot control


migration unless we have -- change the legal right... Would you bring


the numbers down to tens of thousands? Yes. So the numbers are


important? Michael Gove says it is about control, not numbers. You have


said you would like the numbers to come down. That is my personal view,


there are others. We could have a meaningful discussion if the MPs


could have the choice. Would supporters on the Leave side wanted


the numbers come down? A points -based system. The Cattrall is


important, why should the UK not control's they could still have


migrants coming to this country, but they could decide who comes and how


many. A fundamental tenet of being part of the EU is free movement of


people. The suggestion that 500 million people will come to the UK,


and not if they have heard some of the arguments in this debate, they


would not want to set them but in this country... Many millions are


coming. What about those here who want to go abroad in the EU, learn


and study and engage and have business there? You don't need to be


in a political union. It is a two-way street. One of the worst


things is Ukip's involvement, whether it is Nigel Farage talking


about increased six attacks on women, following his general


election debate performance when he talks about HIV-positive patients


being a drain on the NHS. This does not help anyone. Do you agree with


Nigel Farage that the number of six attacks on women would go up if we


stay? I will not get drawn on that. There is a positive test is that if


we vote to leave, we can have an Australian style points system. I


don't want to get involved in anything beyond that, but when


people come here, they should make a positive contribution, but we should


have the right to control who comes here. That may ask something,


stories today that a number of Remain MPs who would be a majority


would vote to state within this ingle market, so Parliament would


trump the vote on the referendum, and Britain would still be exposed


to free movement of people. Would you support that, that Parliament


would have a vote to stay within the single market, even if the UK votes


to leave the EU? The single market is of critical importance to our


businesses. It is not just about being in a big trade organisation,


it is having similar regulation. But what about the Parliament? Part of


the uncertainty, if we vote to get out of the EU on the 23rd of June,


Article 50 will be invoked. Then, a process of negotiation, a minimum of


two years, takes place between us and the EU. The truth is, at the end


of that, it would be for the Government of the day to bring back


to parliament a deal. That deal is not satisfactory, it is beholden


upon members of Parliament, if they feel strongly, to throw out that


deal. The Remain side are not accepting the result of the


referendum? I am not saying that, but we have to negotiate for the


interest in the decades to come. We have got to leave this discussion.


We would need to leave, but not on any terms. That is interesting, we


might be able to pick that up later. Now, there's been a lot


of discussion in the EU referendum campaign about money -


how much do we pay to the EU One of the tangible benefits


is the subsidies for farming, but the environmentalist and writer -


and reluctant EU remainer - George Monbiot argues that might not


be the best use of the funds. # Old McDonald had


a farm, E-I-E-I-O. # And on the farm he had some cows,


E-I-E-I-O. # With a moo moo here,


a moo moo there, cattle everywhere. Why is it the biggest item in the EU


budget is scarcely mentioned I am talking about farm subsidies,


55 billion euros a year that the European Union


doles out to landowners. The more land you own,


the more money you receive. It is daylight robbery,


the rest of us are being taxed to subsidise the richest


people in the land. # When those cows got out of line,


served them medium rare. Subsidy rules insist you must


destroy trees and other wildlife # With a moo moo here,


a moo moo there. There is no limit to the subsidies


you can get for owning land. Some landowners use their


Social Security to buy The benefits for people who need


them to make ends meet, # Old McDonald had


a farm, E-I-E-I-O. At the very least, subsidies


for landowners should be capped at the same level


as benefits for everyone else. I think I am going to vote to remain


in the EU on 23rd June, but if we do stay, let's demand


that it stops robbing the poor And we've also been joined


by another George, George Eustice, the farming minister


who is campaigning to leave the EU. I won't model them up, I promise!


Can you get the reform you want while still being in the EU? It is a


good question. On this issue, the EU has been unresponsive and


unaccountable, it is hard to get them to listen. It is not big


European Commission at fault, there has been a deal, a dodgy deal,


between France and Britain and Germany, France says, we want the


biggest budget possible, and Britain has said, we want no cap on the


individual contribution. Why are you staying in? It is not just about


agriculture, there are lots of other issues. It is dishonest to say,


because I am a Remain campaigner, I should pretend that everything about


the EU is good. Is that the only reason you are leaving, to do with


farming? We would be better off taking back control across the


piece, but I spent two and half years wrestling with the regulations


that George has talked about, and you cannot get proper reform in the


EU, you have 28 governments with different political persuasions,


with different agricultural sectors, structures, the fundamental idea of


a pan-European legal system governing agriculture is flawed. We


need to put in place our own policy that we can get behind. It is


context, you need the flexibility to do things differently. What about


the subsidies farmers would lose? We would still support farming at the


same level. Would you be able to guarantee that level of money? If we


stopped sending ?350 million a week to Brussels... Let's talk about the


net figures. We would have more than enough money to fund an agricultural


policy. If the priority was farming and agriculture. And the environment


and animal welfare. We are spending over 3 billion a year on farming,


recycled through the EU. It is paid for owning land. We are facing a


shortfall, in the NHS into 3 billion, we are going to give it to


landowners instead of dealing with the shortfall in the NHS? Nobody


will stand for that. The only reason the system exists is we can say,


that is Brussels' business. We would deliver environmental objectives.


Which ones? It helps to safeguard our security of food, I am in favour


of looking at some of the models they have in Canada, so farmers can


invest. You could put in place a suite of different environmental


schemes to have watercourses protected, we can do it better than


the system we have now. This is the stuff that you have tried to scrap,


I have seen the speeches you have given, where you have said, we will


tear down the regulations, big and issues that you have to meet as a


farmer to get this money. Just as the ordinary recipients of benefits


have had their conditions racked up until it is extremely difficult to


survive on Social Security, under your watch farmers have had their


conditions reduced. So we are giving away the money for nothing. Even


when farmers are stripping the soil off the land, contributing to


floods, wiping out these and songbirds, they are still getting


their subsidy. When we judge you on your record, we find a different


picture. We need to have clarity about what this regulation and


enforce it properly, not the system we have now, and buttresses to of


rushed justice. Can you deny those claims? Definitely. We have ?3


billion over five years going into environmental stewardship. We would


retain that activity that promotes the development of habitat. What


about claims that farmers have contributed to flooding, because


they did not have the money or support to do anything else? It is


because the common agricultural policy is so bonkers. I oppose it. I


have never heard you make a public statement saying, this is what is


wrong. We have... Rules say do can only have 100 trees per hectare to


make it eligible, but then there are rules about the maximum dose of a


tree. Let's talk about the subsidy issue. If it is going to landowners,


why should they continue to be subsidised by taxpayers here or


anywhere in the EU if farmers are not getting the money? In future,...


Now. It is not right. It is true there are large landowners who are


not often farming, some of them receiving payments of over half ?1


million a year,... You guarantee they would not get that? We would


change the system, so farmers could manage risk, and you reward farmers


for doing genuine work for the environment. Does that not sound


like it would solve one of your complaints, that wealthy landowners


would not get a subsidy to fly and land their helicopters? Would you


cap the level of subsidies that any one person could get at the same


level as ordinary recipients of benefit? I would not go for it that


way, because some of the best work we do is be higher-level Stuart


ship, we are investing in habitats. I would not... It would not be a


subsidy, it would be a payment for ecosystem services, for work to


improve water quality, promote habitat. Farming is unique, it is


intertwined with our natural landscape and environment, that is


why it is different and you need public support for those public


goods, which you cannot reward in the marketplace. We need a farming


industry. It would be an improvement, if we could trust him


that that is what we would end up with, but everything we have heard


from him is reduced, bridges, reduce, let's get these things out


of the way, they are stifling enterprise. Spirit rushing, you call


them. Why should we trust you? They don't work. They are spirit


crushing because they prevent the farmers who, you seem to regard


yourself as being solely in charge of helping, they prevent them from


ripping up the hedgerows. Forced to do things the wrong way. If we


warrant a coherent environmental policy, we have to take control. We


can't just abdicate responsibility. We have things to fall back on at


the moment. We have abdicated responsibility. Take back control,


we take back responsibility. George and George, thank you very much. I'm


sure you've got a great future together you two, in some sort of


double act! As the campaign enters the final


furlong, Andrew is going to be interviewing leading figures


from each side of the campaign in the coming days, starting


tonight at 7.30 on BBC One with the Shadow Foreign Secretary


Hilary Benn for Remain, followed on Wednesday


by Chancellor George Osborne, and then it's the turn of Leave


campaigners Nigel Farage You might not have realised it


but there are plenty of other political happenings this week other


than arguing about the EU. Though there is of course,


more of that too. As we've already heard,


the Investigatory Powers Bill enters Report Stage today -


giving MPs the chance to suggest On Tuesday, the Queen will open


the fifth Welsh Assembly and the Prime Minister


and Nigel Farage will appear on ITV to make their opposing cases


as to whether the UK should stay On Wednesday Jeremy Corbyn


and David Cameron will duke it out in the first PMQs after recessand


the owner of failed retail chain BHS will give evidence to the Business


Committee. On Thursday, former


Foreign Secretary William Hague will give a speech on the balance


between national security and personal privacy whilst


political and business leaders gather in Dresden for this year's


secretive Bilderberg meeting. Finally on Friday, it's the deadline


for submissions to the Shami Charkrabati Inquiry,


Labour's internal investigation into anti-semtism and Islamophobia


amongst its members. We're joined now by Kevin Schofield


of Politics Home and Anoosh David Cameron and Nigel Farage, are


you going to be sitting on the edge of your sofa for that programme?


I'll be on my sofa, maybe not on the edge. Good to know! Should be an


interesting clash. Obviously they are not going head-to-head but I


think David Cameron would have been reasonably pleased with how he got


on on Sky News last week and he'll be looking for a fresh challenge and


obviously Mr Farage, this is his big, big moment to set out his case


for Brexit. Of course, with Nigel Farage, there's always the chance he


would say something incendiary which could send the Volt Leave camp off


course. Are they so much in full flow on this that they'll just do it


off the hoof? Nigel Farage will be on the hoof because he's not


afilliated to the vote Leave campaign at all. ITV booked him to


be on this particular debate. So I think they said it was a stitch-up,


so I think Nigel Farage is just going to go rogue. You've seen the


comments he's made today about the risk of increased sex attacks from


migrants, I mean what more does he have in the locker to bring out


tomorrow, who knows! What about the blue on blue, since there's been a


lot of that about in the last few days and both sides I suppose, to be


fair, are plunging to new depths. John Major clearly had three wet bix


if not more for breakfast yesterday. How damaging do you think it is now


that David Cameron is sharing a Platt form with Natalie Bennett and


Tim Farron? You see him sharing a platform with opposing party


leaders, so logically you thinked say they are all on one side for


this particular issue, but when you have Jeremy Corbyn refusing to stand


alongside David Cameron, it throws the Remain campaign in a bit of


confusion. There was an eye-opener, Natalie Bennett had a pop at the


media for turning the EU referendum campaign into a Tory leadership


campaign. It's Tory MPs who're doing that, not people like ourselves


writing about it. But is it the case Anoosh that there is a feeling of


planning for June 24th now, rather than referendum night itself?


Absolutely. The story now is that even if David Cameron and the Remain


campaign win, all the Tory MPs, people are citing 30 or 40 MP who is


want to get rid of Cameron so it will be a challenge for him either


way. If he wins, he'll be torn between perhaps trying to do some


reconciliation reshuffle where he promotes Brexiters who've been


tipped for this, but also giving Michael Gove and Boris Johnson more


power in the Cabinet. That could equally scupper David Cameron's


power as well because people who've been loyal to him during this might


find that odd and a bit jarring. What about the story of the majority


of MPs voting to stay in the single market if the UK does vote to leave


the EU, what do you make of that story, Kevin? It's a great story is


the first thing to say. I would be astonished if they were to go ahead


with it. People are going to vote on 23rd June knowing full well what


Brexit is going to mean. No-one will go into the booth not knowing the


consequences of leaving or staying. It would appear that if the MPs are


trying to defy the will of the people by trying to see us in the


single market if people vote for Brexit, it would look really, really


bad. Trust for public and MPs has been low and it would take a further


nose dive if that were to happen. Thank you both of you.


A row has broken out in the Tory party and no, it's not even


But whether people should have to declare on their job applications


whether they went to private school or not.


The Government thinks this could improve social mobility


and opportunities for state educated pupils but Tory peer,


and provost of Eton College, Lord Waldegrave threatened


Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said that


improving life chances was a central mission of his Government.


I believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. I think


it's absolutely correct, but we have to recognise that this alone is not


enough. When it comes to people and poverty, the rising tide doesn't


lift all boats, so if we want to transform life chances, we have got


to go much, much deeper. We need a more social approach. One


where we develop a richer picture at how social problems combined, how


they reinforce each other, how they manifest themselves throughout


someone's life and how the opportunity gap gets generated as a


result. Joining me now is the journalist


James Bloodworth who has just written a new book called


The Myth of Meritocracy. Doesn't exist? Not at if moment I


don't think. I thought David Cameron delivered a very good speech. We


need to look at social class in the way we look at other issues around


identity and the disadvantages they bring about. There are lots of


campaigns at the moment to get more women into board rooms, to get more


minorities into board rooms, those are very good. But class has to some


extent dropped off the agenda. What about the suggestion for


professional recruitment in terms of having to state whether you went to


a state comprehensive school or a private school, is that fair? Yes, I


think so. I mean, I think that, you know, Eton kind of privileges


children of parents that have money so we should look to address the


balance. You already put the school you went to on your CV. People could


always look it up if they were that interested? Yes. I don't think it


will make a huge difference but I don't think it's something to be


frightened of, to state that that was a fee-paying school or a


comprehensive school. The balance has to be redressed doesn't it,


Douglas Carswell so obviously it must be fair to state your school?


I've looked at CVs in the past, looked at universities and jobs they


had done, I wasn't really interested in their school. Doesn't advantage


get built in at school level? There is a small, smug, self-perpetuating


Elise, Davos perhaps, and back the Remain campaign. We do need reform


though and we need to break that cartel. That is one of the reasons


why I left my own party and stood in a by-election and believed we need


far-reaching political change. Are these things important. You went to


a grammar school? I did. You both succeeded. Do you think it needs to


be that explicit, I went to a state school and please therefore take


that into account? I worry about it being too explicit. My mother was


the daughter of a doctor and that was held against her when she came


to the West, so I worry we are going down a particular route. There is a


genuine issue about social mobility which has clearly gone backwards in


the last 20-30 years here in the UK and I think you are right about


meritocracy, one of the dangers is that people think there is no sense


of Leave whatsoever. I believe in making money and whatever success


I've had, we are in a merry tock radiocy and that brings with it some


dangers. It's crude to have a statistic about which school you


went to, increditly dangerous. I think it's more paying lip service


to the society than making a huge difference. I think if Cameron was


serious about it, he'd look at reducing the gap between rich and


poor. Universities - if you look at the expansion of universities over


the last 15 years, many more poorer working class children or teenagers


go to university, but the proportion of the best universities has gone


down so we need to look at the university system. Post-graduate


education, you can't get a loan for that, you have to go to the bank. In


economic terms, there is an injustice. The FTSE has companies


earning 150 times what the FTSE was. We need far-reaching change. What's


made that happen, what has increased that equality? A small Click of


people decide public policy, partly, I hate to bring it back to the


Europe question, but partly through Brussels, the sort of people lining


up to back the Remain campaign and they have rigged the economy so


rent-seeking interests re-Prince of Wale. There is a broader issue about


the impact of global issues, there is a genuine concern. I often say


myself that it seems now that the rules of global capitalism seem


to... Rent-seeking Click? ! Middle class Tory voting people, dare I


say. In the Remain campaign. 20 years ago would have said they are


the winners, now they are amongst the losers. The middle classes are


being locked out. Journalism for example, 43% of newspaper columnists


went to private school, locking out middle class as well. Big state


subsidies. State subsidies also for farming. We need the welfare system


to help people who need help. Must the welloff though lose out for the


disadvantaged to succeed? To some extent in financial terms yes, I


think so. I don't think private schools should have charitable


status for one thing. So you could say that is people losing out. A


huge amount of work... Do they all do that though to earn the


charitable status There is a massive amount of work and sponsors. I think


that money would be better used in... That's... There is an argument


to be had there. We have to bring class back on to the agenda in the


way we understand disadvantage is accrued from identity. There are


more ethnic minorities elected in Parliament, also more people who


went to public schools, we are going backwards in that respect. Thank you


very much. There's just time before we go to


find out the answer to our quiz. The question was; which of


the following is not related How do you know that then? It's


Nigel. The others are related to William and Anne. Although they are


distant relations. Douglas Carswell got it right. Thank you to our


guests of the day. Thank you. Mr Reginald Keys?


We're from Army notification. About your brother.


He's been shot dead. 'one man's mission for justice


for his son.'


Download Subtitles