06/06/2016 Daily Politics

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.'