07/06/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/06/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron and Michael Gove trade blows - again -


with competing claims over the cost of leaving the EU,


What are the Labour arguments for leaving or remaining?


Gisela Stuart goes head to head with Chuka Umunna.


A new artwork is unveiled in parliament celebrating


A new artwork is unveiled in Parliament celebrating


the Suffragettes' struggle for votes for women.


And Giles rolls up his sleeves and takes the strain


as he joins the annual Lords versus MPs tug-of-war competition.


and with us for the whole of the programme today,


the former shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna.


So, another busy morning on the EU referendum campaign trail.


David Cameron has just been making a speech where he,


once again, focused on latest warnings on leaving the EU.


speaking about the "economic reality check"


from the World Trade Organisation this morning.


Instability, jobs and investments lost.


Instability, jobs and investment lost.


That is the very clear message from today and this is an


economic reality check for our country.


And it doesn't come from people with an axe to grind,


but from credible, independent experts.


People who either have real skin in the game in terms of jobs


or investment, or whose job it is to warn about risks


to the world economy or global trade.


The Prime Minister's warnings followed a letter


from Vote Leave campaigners Michael Gove and Boris Johnson,


who argued that the UK could deport


more EU criminals back to the continent


They highlighted 50 cases in which, they say, the EU and European Courts


Here's the Justice Secretary speaking in an interview earlier.


We're certainly not trying to scare anyone, we're absolutely


emphasising the importance of taking back control.


If we leave the European Union, then we can have a greater degree


of security and safety in this country and we can ensure


that the laws we enforce and the way in which we treat criminals


are what I believe the British people would like to see.


I am sure that the British people would want to ensure that if someone


who has committed a crime and is a foreign national has


completed their sentence, that we can deport them,


rather than have them remain here, act as a cost to the taxpayer


and as a potential further danger to fellow citizens.


We've been joined by the Conservative MEP


and Leave campaigner, Dan Hannan.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. If we left the EU, we would be able to


more easily deport EU criminals. I think that is rubbish, we have the


benefit of the European arrest warrant, which over the last six or


seven years has enabled us to deport and remove other 6,500 criminals


back to their countries of origin. We have actually been able to bring


people back here to face justice under the European arrest warrant,


including one of the people who attempted to add to the bombing that


we saw in 2005 and that is before you look at the prisoner exchange


agreements we have got and the criminal exchange system. What about


the 50 cases cited by the Leave Campaign, where European Court


blocked the extradition of those criminals to their respective EU


countries? Well, if you look at the broad swathe of the figures, they


have cited a number, we have cited 130 times that number. No one has


said the system is perfect, I have never argued that the EU is perfect,


but who argue that if we came out it would make it easier to remove these


criminals is completely untrue, not least because of course you would


have to negotiate new arrangements with each of the remaining 27 member


states. The director of Euro poll has said there are likely to be at


least the same number of British criminals abroad as foreign crumbles


in the UK, so we would have to welcome back our criminals, how does


that make us safer? We know who they are and we would be able to deal


with them. That doesn't make us any safer. There has always been a


international system for cooperating like this, the International


convention, the Hague Convention, time spent in another country as


part of your sentence and all of it predates the EU and will carry on.


But we say that handing people Makabu its power to the same people


that brought us the Schengen area and so on -- are we safe are handing


over the power to these same people. They may have interest in power at


heart and in case of the 50 cases cited today, they are an cases of


people who have been convicted and at the expiry of their sentence


cannot be removed from this country. But you do accept we would have to


welcome back UK criminals who have committed crimes abroad in the EU? I


would have thought it people have committed crimes are not being


deported, of course it is a two-way thing but people would regard it as


a sensible system. How many of the criminals released today currently


pose a threat to UK citizens? Usually, the deportation begins at


the expiry of a sentence, so one assumes the majority have been


released. So you don't know? I don't know how many have Bindaree


arrested... How many currently pose a threat? That is what you have


said. Dominic Crabb was asked the same question and how many currently


pose a risk to EU citizens and you cannot say. But of all of them who


either haven't all have been released, all of them. These of 50


illustrative cases. I am not saying it is a total of 50, there are many


more. We have picked 50 cases going from some high profile murderers,


like the boy who murdered Philip Lawrence, the headteacher, down to


some of let's call the middle ranking cases, salts and rapes and


so on. These are not just 50 cases, these are 50... But 130 times that


have been removed. But you're not saying that without the European


arrest warrant there would be no extraditions or international


treaties? The question is how long it would take to put into place


alternative arrangements and whether we would have the same arrangements


that we have now if we were to come out. That is 27 other countries, you


would have to negotiate new arrangements with them. That would


take some time and who is to say we would get the same arrangements? The


truth of the matter is you don't know. You


saw a constituent whose life was ruined because of a false accusation


brought under the European arrest warrant. He spent three years under


house arrest in Athens, 11 months in one of the nastiest prisons in


Europe for what was clearly a case of mistaken identity. He had gone


out celebrating his A-levels. By the time he was finally cleared, the


people with whom he had been celebrated had finished their


degrees. Isn't this about control, that it would be better if the UK


control the destiny and fatal criminals rather than Brussels or


transport? Well, following negotiation, the uncertainty in this


area has been cleared up, which gives us greater power to ensure


people are brought to justice here and to remove people but on this


issue of control, one of the biggest problems with the Leave Campaign is


that they argue all of the problems that we have, whether it is


migration, foreign criminals, from the EU or not, all of these problems


can be sold by us leaving, and that is for the birds. Take the migration


issue, the central issue for voters leave, the migration crisis was not


caused by the European Union, it was caused by huge and stability in the


Middle East and Africa. We are not saying all of the problems will


disappear, we are arguing that in an uncertain world, it must be more


secure to take back control so we can mitigate the risks ourselves,


rather than passing power to people... We will finish it there


because we will come onto the issues of migration and immigration.


The Times today reports that former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls


was spotted at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival over the weekend.


C) singing the Diana Ross and Lionel Richie classic


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


Or seen dead. I won't do that. Thank God -- or seeing it.


we've heard a lot from the Remain side


about the risks of leaving the EU.


Brexit, they say, would be a "leap in the dark",


the cause of a "DIY recession" and could even lead to war.


But now the Leave campaign is trying to turn the tables and focus


Let's take a look at what they've been saying.


They argue that remaining in the EU means we will be permanently tied to


They say we'll have to hand over more money to the EU in the future,


as the UK's growth continues to outstrip other member states.


And they say that EU treaties mean we are potentially liable


Leave campaigners also argue that remaining


in will lead to ever-higher levels of immigration.


They say we'll see even more immigration after countries


And it's also claimed that high immigration is a particular risk


to low-paid workers, as more and more people


Staying in the EU is also said to threaten our national security,


because we can't stop dangerous people entering the country.


Leave campaigners point the finger at the European Court of Justice,


which they say sometimes blocks the UK from deporting


And they say that plans for an EU Army will undermine both NATO


Dan Hannan are still with us. Let's start with national-security, what


evidence is there that we will see an EU army any time soon? The


commission describes it as a strategic necessity. The commission


is not a wacky Federalist think tank, they initiate registration.


Jean-Claude Juncker almost every time he opens his mouth says we need


this urgently and the Spanish Government, they are all pushing it.


Heavily times have we been through this, where we hear British


ministers saying no one is proposing it, it is just chitchat... It hasn't


happened, of course. That is what we were told about the euro. But it


hasn't happened. When people say no one is talking about it, it is no


one except the people running the EU. It is clear they wanted, that is


the point Dan Hannan is also trying to make, there is a will for it to


happen in parts of the European Union, you can't dispute that is


what makes you sure it won't happen? There is a mixture of use but


certainly not a consensus for a European army and as ever with Dan


Hannan, he always quote the European Commission, yes, they are


bureaucrats, they are civil servants, and in the end, the people


who make the decisions for laws in the European Union are MEPs like


that and the European Council, they have to sign off any legislative


proposal and I do not see it happening. A clear majority of MEPs


are in favour of a European army and a clear majority in the Council. If


there is a clear majority of MEPs in the European Parliament, even if


there are a number of member states and David Cameron has said today


that we have a rock-solid veto on a European army, you can't


categorically say it will never happen. There is a veto. But how


many states are needed to vote on the European army? What you see is


miffed after myth peddled. One minute they say there will be a


European army and we say we have a veto, they say it doesn't matter,


forget about that, there will be an army. They assert that Turkey will


join the European Union and we have a veto on whether they do. You can't


function this whole campaign legitimately, can you, on the idea


of what might happen, on the fears of people about Turkey, for example,


the poster that said 80 million Turks are coming to the UK, which is


patently not true at the moment? Can you do the same in issues of trust


over the European army? I say to people look at what is happening


now, look at the past record. How many times have we seen British


prime ministers saying they are going to go and veto this or that. I


can remember Tony Blair saying it. I remember discussing it with you on


the programme, the time when this Prime Minister said he is not going


to pay the extra prosperity surcharge, I am furious, I will not


pay it and of course, he ended up having to pay. On this issue of the


European army, I have heard Dan and others and I think Dan joined the


European Parliament when I was still at school and they have all been


threatening a European army because the horrible bureaucrats in Brussels


want to create a European superstate and it has not happened. Let's look


at some of the claims made by your side. Let's have a look at the


Eurozone bailouts and whether the UK would be obliged or compelled to


contribute to it, because we know it is absolutely not true, the Prime


Minister says, but the reality check agrees in this case with the Remain


Campaign. The UK will not pay for future eurozone bailouts, it has


been agreed and in addition, the deal from February, which will be


implemented in the UK votes to stay, reinforces this and states the UK


will be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the crisis. That


sounds pretty clear. So once again, go on the basis of what we have seen


rather than what we have been promised. We were


given a cast-iron guarantee that we would not be required to bail out


any of the eurozone countries because we kept our currency. At the


next General Election -- last General Election, the Prime Minister


made a big deal of it. And in June last year, when it became clear they


needed the money for the Greek bailout, we became stung. The


bridging loan. The Prime Minister described it as a flagrant breach of


what is promised. The old saying, fool me once, shame on me, for me


twice, shame on me. will use the Treaty of Rome says


that all member states can be called on to help any individual member


state that might find itself in severe difficulties, from a natural


disaster or the migrant crisis, for example. So that could involve the


UK bailing out a Eurozone country. Let's be clear, the UK will not


contribute to a Eurozone bailout. We are not in the Eurozone. And we have


a veto on increases in the European budget. These guys can muddy the


water all they like and pick out little things and say because an


inch as been given there are, a mile or be given away and we are going to


contribute all this money. It won't happen. It is only a matter of time


before the crisis hits France or Italy. You know that. You want be


dragged into it is a fantasy. Let's pick up on the budget. -- that you


won't be dragged into it is a fancy C. The fiscal framework that comes


up every seven years, there are individual negotiations that Britain


does not have a veto over. It can be passed by qualified majority voting,


so in between those two .7 years, the budget can go up and Britain


wouldn't be able to stop it. Britain has stopped increases in the budget


in the past, and it can in the future. Let me make this point. I


think there is a fair point in relation to what happens if there is


a complete contrast of the in the Eurozone. What does happen? Go back


to when Greece was on the precipice of potentially coming out. There was


no question at that time that we would be contributing into the


bailout, but people anticipated that if Greece came out there would be a


severe humanitarian situation in Greece, not least because of the


economy collapsing more than it has already done. In that situation, I


don't think even Dan would advocate that the UK shouldn't play some


part. At the idea that we would pay into a bailout is for the birds. It


won't happen. Right, what about the idea of the budget? Is it true that


Britain does have a veto every seven years by those negotiations, but on


the annual negotiations they don't? Yes. And for the first time ever in


17 years that I have been in the parliament, they have postponed the


discussion of the mid-term review until after the referendum. It was


due at the start of the year and they said, let's not try to me


horses. They are doing this in area after area. The attack on commercial


ports, the budget hike, all of these things are being held back for the


event of the stay vote that Remain vote. -- in the event of a Remained.


They are banning hairdryers and toasters. The higher powered one.


They will find a lot of the ones they are currently buying are now


banned. Is that because of safety regulations? It has been postponed


until after our referendum. It was lifted from the agenda at the last


minute and deferred. You are saying that they have banned these


electrical appliances, and it turns out they happened at all. So you


won't be able to use a hair dryer if we stay in the EU? All of these


things have been deferred. In your case, it might not be such a


problem! Let down finish the point. The plans for ports is opposed by


every port owner. That went through every British -- that went through.


Every MEP voted against. And they have deferred until after the


summer. There is so much stuff being held back. Every single port owner


is against it. You may think it is funny. I am not laughing. You're the


one making it up as you go along. Every MEP and owner are posted. You


are now making light of it and saying it doesn't matter. You are


saying our ports will be shut down? They will face a commercial


disadvantage. Let's see what happens in a few weeks. Thank you for coming


in. This afternoon, the European


Commission is expected to outline new measures to reduce the numbers


of migrants attempting to make the journey


across the mediterranean Reports suggest the Commission


will propose offering some Middle Eastern and north-east


African countries extra cash and visa liberalisation in return


for their cooperation in stopping Dan Hannan is staying for this bit.


What is being proposed precisely, Damien? We don't know the details.


They have been debating this morning in the commission, nailing down what


they want to release. The full the tiles will come out very shortly. We


understand that the broad brush is that this is the latest part of the


EU's migration strategy to tackle the migration crisis. We have seen


what happened in Greece and Turkey with the deal there. What the


commission is saying is that building on that sort of template,


that experience, not exactly what has happened there, but similar,


because they say it has been successful and we have seen a


dramatic reduction in numbers, they are looking at a similar thing with


African and Middle Eastern countries. That means essentially


these partnerships that they are talking about, which boils down to


trying to get the countries of origin, the source countries that


the migrants come from, and the countries they pass through to do


more to restrict the flows. In return, the EU would offer financial


help with things like putting up a fund for development projects in


some of those countries in Africa, more money for border controls, for


trying to help those transit companies deal with things and put


in more border controls, and ultimately offer greater


partnerships in terms of access to the European Union for legal


migration, so that would be people who would be able to get work


permits to work in the EU. We're not talking huge numbers. The current


numbers under this blue card scheme that exists for skilled migrants is


about ten - 12,000 per year, but talking about that is going up to


between 30000 and 100,000 a year of skilled migrants able to come in.


These are promises that would be given down the line and they


promised preferential trade. Briefly, have you had any


conversations with these countries themselves? Are they eager for these


deals and partnerships to happen to deal with the migrant crisis? The


difficulty with a lot of this is that many of the countries that are


key to this are very difficult for the EU to deal with. Libya, of


course, is the key transit point for the route to Italy, which is the


biggest issue facing the EU at the minute. The numbers coming through


that route are far greater than the numbers crossing from Turkey to


Greece, but there is no Government, no authority in Libya for the EU to


deal with at the minute with whom they could implement something like


this. That is a problem. It is a problem for the EU to try to deal


with countries like Sudan and Eritrea, which are source countries


but which have human rights concerns in terms of doing a deal. The focus


initially will perhaps be more on places like Jordan, Lebanon, and


then perhaps some West African countries. Thank you. Can this work


with these countries, particularly those who don't have governments


that we can deal with? It is welcome that we have these developments. I


hope they work. In the end, I hope this this is something -- this is


something that is a cross-border issue and we can deal with it on our


own. The other issue is an skewering there is sufficient aid closer to


the countries of origin for these refugees so that they don't actually


have to make the dangerous trip, or they don't feel the pull to make


that trip. This is why they want to try and replicate the deal that they


have done with Turkey - it has worked. Talking about the countries


of origin is our way of not facing the question. Do you disagree? I


spent a lot of last summer volunteering in a hostility in Italy


dealing with underage migrants were crossing the Mediterranean. -- in a


hostel in Italy. Buy what about turning them away? They are coming


because of rising wealth and aspiration. The telephones and


technology that make it possible to cross the Sahara in a way that there


are subsistence -- that there is subsistence farmer grandparents


could not. They have not... People are coming through alternative


routes, either through Hungary or whatever. Do you think it could


work? The real problem the EU had was that it invited people in, and


because it had the Schengen zone, and there was no responsibility for


each country, there was a perverse incentive to waive people through to


the next jurisdiction. This has been the problem all along, and the


question for Britain and everyone else is, we can see that the EU is


being convulsed by these twin crises. Could the UK deal with a


better alone? Yes. Are we going to make them our problems or are we


going to reorient towards the rest of the world? Voting to stay in is


not the same as... We are not part of the Schengen passport - free


zone. There is a big contradiction in what Dan is saying. He is saying


all these people are coming because of the pull on the wealthy get in


the Eurozone, and on the other hand he is telling you the Eurozone is a


basket case. That is why they are heading here. Because the UK -- the


the EU is a basket case? In the final weeks before the EU


referendum, we have been showcasing the arguments for Leave and Remain


made by members of different In a moment, we'll hear


from the Labour MP and chair of the Vote Leave campaign,


Gisela Stuart. First, here's Labour's Shadow


Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, with the Labour case for remaining


in the EU. The peaceful and prosperous Europe


we are part of today is a far It is a Europe of cooperation that


has brought jobs, investment and growth,


that enables us to work, And that cooperation is exactly


what the next generation is going to rely on to deal


with the challenges that Making sure our economy


is strong so that we can pay for our NHS, dealing with


the movement of people because of conflict and climate


change, keeping us safe, and making the most


of the Walking away from Europe


isn't going to help our children and our grandchildren


to manage the change that they are What will is continuing


to work with our neighbours in Europe,


and we're good at it. Britain has always been


an It is why we have such


influence around the This is not a vote about the past,


it is a vote about our future. Let's secure that future


by voting Remain. That was Hilary Benn. And here is


Gisela Stuart, with the Labour case for leaving the EU.


The EU once promised a social Europe defending Labour's values.


Today, the left make up only a third of


those running the EU, which is dominated by the leaders


of the right, even the far right, and their


George Osborne, Goldman Sachs, the CBI, the


Institute of Directors - it is a Tory-EU elite,


campaigning first to remain part of their EU that they


But if we vote Leave, we take back control.


We would be better off if we used the ?350 million


that we send to the EU each week to build the NHS.


We would be safer if we controlled our borders and protected


our public services by not ratifying TTIP.


protected from the Eurozone's austerity that has left a


generation of young people without work.


And we would be fairer if we


end the discrimination in our immigration system and end the


erosion of wages in our poorest communities.


We can build a better future based on Labour values, but


only if we vote Leave and take back control.


And Gisela Stuart is here with us now.


Welcome back to the Daily Politics. First of all, Chuka Umunna, this


idea, you must accept surely, that there are more people competing for


relatively low-paid jobs that depresses wages, which is bad news


for a lot of your voters and that is a result of EU migration? I don't


quite accepted the way you have put. I have huge respect for Gisela, who


is a friend and we agree on so many things, but on this, we


fundamentally disagree, as do the overwhelming majority of MPs in the


Labour Party. Are you saying it doesn't depress wages for the


low-paid, EU migration? I would not disagree that it has posed


difficulties in the Labour market, but what I would say is that in the


end, if you want to prevent depression in wages, you need to get


a good national minimum wage going up and properly enforce it, which


the current Government isn't doing and secondly, a lot of people, when


I have had this discussion, so these people are taking our jobs. The idea


that if the people who supposedly are taking the jobs, when they go,


others can step in, is for the birds. The big problem we have in


the Labour market is we are not equipping people with the right


skills, technical vocational skills and apprenticeships to make it. The


big thing the EU does, not only is it a big wealth and jobs generator,


the countries representing over 600 members, the important thing is that


we have a flaw in terms of jobs and workers' rights across the European


Union that prevents British workers being played off against French


workers or German workers or any others. Do you accept the great


strides that have been paid by the EU and UK workers enjoy the workers'


rights passed by the EU and compelled the Government to actually


put them into statute? I am kind of puzzled by this historical analysis.


If you look at workers' rights in the United Kingdom, they have been


far more progressive than the rest of the European Union. Many of the


rights which are now even more generous in the United Kingdom


started well before then. Equal pay for women goes back to Made In


Dagenham and Barbara Castle and all those things. We now have European


Court of Justice rulings, things like the right to strike will be


curtailed in the interest of the full movement. Which ruling? The


Viking ship the case. Brendan Barber contended, Alan Johnson did. So the


rightward coverlet of the right to strike would be withdrawn? The


European Court of Justice made it clear that if you want to strike,


the interests of the European Union overrule the interests... This is a


once in a generation decision on how we conduct ourselves in the future


and who should make the decisions. The eurozone at the moment has


enormous youth unemployment. They can only resolve it with the


eurozone or deeply integrates as a political institution. We will be


collectively better off if our economies are more successful. The


eurozone has to go one way and our future is a different way. I used to


be an employment lawyer for the best part of a decade and if you look at


temporary worker rights, anti-discrimination rights,


anti-discrimination... All of those things derive from EU legislation


but the principal point I made to Gisela, which is having this floor


and a standard set of rights across 28 member states, stops that race to


the bottom where our rides could potentially be set off against


German or Polish employees. And on the eurozone, because Gisela brought


it up, let's be clear, we are not a member of the eurozone, but being


part of the single market, let's not forget, it is our biggest customer,


44% of our exports Kovach, creates jobs. Look at the chairman of


Hitachi, employs 41,000 people in our country, developing trends in


the north-east, it is clear that if we let the EU, it would affect


investment decisions. Can we come back to certain things? The lowest


paid at the moment, the Bank of England says for every 10% of


immigration, 2% of the wages are suppressed. We have big companies


are able to not train workers because they can fish from an


enormous big pool of workers across the European Union who are prepared


to work for very low wages. The Labour Party today makes a case


about workers' rights, let's come back to that, workers' rights are


any meaningful if you have got a job, that is the really important


thing. Let Gisela finish a point. May I just finished? If you go back


to the workers' rights and employment record, what I found in


the United Kingdom, what has produced good workers' rights and


feathers have been strong trade unions and strong Labour governments


and even the most right-wing Tory governments have been unable to undo


this. Minimum wage, remember the great evening whether Labour


Government introduced it? If you want progressive social rights and


employment, you make sure you have a Labour Government. I think we are


both agreed that a Labour Government is a way to creating a more


progressive... Do you think a Labour Government will not come in so you


need the EU? For all of the claims how we need to take control, the


national minimum wage is an example of how we do and Gisela is right, we


need strong trade unions but the overwhelming majority of trade union


representing the overwhelming majority of members want to stay in


the EU. The US trade deal, do you support that deal? Not in its


current form, it needs to change. I have said let's wait and see and I


have spoken to the current trade Commissioner about this and to the


previous one and the idea that our socialist colleagues in Government


in France, social Democratic colleagues in Sweden and the new


Socialist Government in Portugal, potential coalition partners in


Spain, would sign off on agreement that is detrimental to promoting


equality and public services... The report from the European


Parliament's policy Department has predicted that more than a million


EU citizens will be forced out of work as a direct result of TTIP,


including 150,000 in the UK, which is why Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn


is vetoing it. But let's be clear, we don't have a final agreement.


Hillary Clinton isn't terribly keen. Will jobs be lost as a result of


TTIP? It is not agree Jed. Transparency, regulations levelling


up and down and it implies that a different US state to get the value


back in the UK. We do not have formal final agreement, the


presumptive Democratic nominee doesn't agree with it and nor does


our Government. So it sounds like it will not happen whether we stay in


or out of the EU? No, but TTIP illustrate something important.


Don't you find it troubling that we don't even see the text?


Negotiations are going somewhere else. Two thirds of the Governments


that will make the decisions are no right or centre-right governments,


so workers' rights are not at the top. Even Germany is unhappy with


TTIP. Big companies can take Government to court, which will


seriously undermined the NHS. Are we going to agree? It sounds like there


will be an awful lot of opposition. Westminster Parliament have no say


in this until the end, so I am against big vested interest making


deals behind doors where we as elected representatives are only


dealt with at the end of it. But it is untrue to say Parliament hasn't


had a say. Once you get the text put before European Council, the


democratically elected Government of United Kingdom and governments of


all other member state countries will have an input. The idea that


when is published and we have to accept it, is totally untrue. But to


take control means to vote Labour and we can make decisions about


this. Well, you got the last word. She didn't, you just butted in


again! In the last hour, Mike Ashley -


the founder and boss of one of Europe's biggest sports


retailers, Sports Direct - has been questioned by MPs


on the Business Select committee, about claims that thousands


of his warehouse workers have effectively been paid below


the minimum wage. Here was Mike Ashley


being questioned by MPs a little You are the founder of the company,


you have grown this company you wouldn't be impartial


when it comes to this. Do you need somebody independent


to look at this with I can agree with you that in some


ways, I am not the right person, because I am not an expert


in every area of employment. Obviously, it is not my field


of expertise, it is not So, yes, there could be other people


that you could have said would have been better qualified than me


to do it. In terms of what you have been doing


in regards to this review, are there some things you have found


out that you didn't Some things have come as a bit


of an unpleasant surprise, yes. Could I also ask, in terms


of the allegations that were made in December about searches,


you were talking about bottlenecks, do you accept that the company


was effectively paying workers On that specific point for that


specific bit of time, yes. When people are searched at the end


of the working shift, If I clock off at five o'clock


and it takes five or ten minutes, would I be paid for those


extra ten minutes? You shouldn't take five or ten


minutes, that is point. We now talk to Kate Andrews from


the Institute Of Economic Affairs, and of course, Chuka Umunna,


who was Labour's Shadow Business Secretary 2011-2015 and has also


worked as an employment lawyer. He is still here with us. Kate


Andrews, is it right that the businessmen like Mike Ashley should


come before a committee of MPs and be grilled? If it is suspected he is


up to illegal behaviour, then yes, probably. Anybody, even if they


support the surveillance, should be deeply uncomfortable with the way


Sports Direct has handled this issue with employees having to strip down


to see if they have potentially stolen anything. Very uncomfortable


there. But if you look back to the original story, when the Guardian


reported it, they reported the surveillance issue and that


employees were penalised if they turned up late, cuts to their wages,


and they acted like it was the same thing and this is what I am


fundamentally concerned about. Employees have the right to enter


into any voluntary contract with the employer as long as it is legal and


we should rightly question whether or not Sports Direct has invaded on


people's privacy with the surveillance issue, but suggesting


an employer cannot have penalties for people is being later work and


overstep by the Government. Other things were cited, people talking on


mobile phones when on shift, people breaching quite basic levels of


behaviour that actually the public might think is totally acceptable.


Director to enact. I tabled an urgent question on this in December


in relation to whether or not Sports Direct were complying with


obligations to pay the national minimum wage, which interlinks


because there was the question of whether people were being paid for


the time they sent being body searched, so to speak, and I am


pleased that HMRC appear to have vindicated the concerns that I and


other MPs raised, because it seems an agreement to compensate employees


will time they should have been paid has been reached, that has just come


out on the website for the BBC before I came into the studio. But


there are things that companies are able to do in the law and there are


things that we all expect of companies, as citizens, in our


economy and in society and specifically, because I am aware of


how litigious some of these CEOs and chair people can be and I'm sure the


BBC are as well, so let me reserve my comments for the companies as


opposed to the people running them, but I think what we have seen


through the working practices of Sports Direct but also recent events


at BHS is the ugly underbelly of capitalism, where people are treated


appallingly badly. But that is not the same as being treated in an


illegal fashion. But my argument... Look, I think British business on


the whole treats its employees very well indeed and has a huge amount


and contributes a huge amount but the problem with practices like this


is, look, there are lots of things the law allows us to do but we


choose not to do them because we care for our fellow citizens and


human beings. Let's look at the moral code, then, do you feel


comfortable with that or is it, as reported, that shares have fallen in


Sports Direct because of the negative publicity, by 45%. In a


way, the market will make a decision is bad practice is going on? Well,


talking about the underbelly of capitalism, it is blatantly ignoring


the fact that the market has spoken on the issue and when illegal


behaviour is suggested, people do appear in front of bodies publicly


and are held to account, but what this Government wants to do in the


Labour movement is crack down on... Do they have the choice, when it


comes to zero hours contracts, it may sue people but many do not have


a choice. It suits politicians to say people are being treated


unfairly but look at the facts and what employees have to say when it


comes to zero hours contracts. 60% of people are satisfied or very


satisfied with the contract, 2% higher than the average full-time


worker. Nine out of ten on zero hours contracts say they do not want


more working hours, often students or parents raising children, who


want flexibility. The Government uses examples like Sports Direct,


admittedly a bad example, but they want to come in and bring sweeping


regulation to stop people from having flexibility that they want.


Have you ever worked a zero-hours contract? No, but my friend has. Are


you saying that they don't suit anyone? Know, and I didn't say it


when I was Shadow Business Secretary. I have seen data as to


whether people are satisfied or not but I don't accept the


characterisation of those figures and how they have been put forward.


Let's look at the reality. There are lots of people who have been on


zero-hours contracts, and it means that you don't know when your next


shift will come. It means it is very hard, for example, to get a


mortgage, because you do not have stable income. I don't think there


is an issue with politicians. You say that politicians use us. I


represent 100,000 people and I have constituents who come to me about


the way they are treated and the instability in their lives because


of zero-hours contract. Would you ban them? I wouldn't, but they need


to be tightened up a lot more. You can be required to be on call,


you're not offered a shift and you do not get paid anything. It is


unacceptable. Is it better than not having a job? You would clearly


rather have a job. But if you don't have any hours that pay you a


salary, some people would question the benefit. Chuka has questioned


the figures unsatisfied and very satisfied. It seems unlikely that


that number of people would favour in security. If Chalker has other


figures, he is welcome to share them. I am sure they are accurate.


It has been said that you could not be just from that that everyone is


happy being on a zero-hours contract. This is what we get from


Government politicians who know -- you think that they know best


possible society. You're suggesting that those people shouldn't have the


same opportunities because you are uncomfortable. I speak for


constituents who come into my surgery. I represent people and have


a mandate. If you want to get to the heart of the problem, you need to


address the fact that the economy is stagnant and there are not enough


full-time jobs. If you were to lower taxes and bring in investment, you


and I could be on the same page. For people who want full time jobs, they


should be able to have them. But we are not addressing those who want


the flexibility. You are probably -- you're just condemning capitalism.


Kate, thank you very much. 150 years ago today,


John Stuart Mill presented a petition in Parliament,


calling for votes for women. It was seen as the start


of the women's suffrage movement. To celebrate, MPs are unveiling


a new artwork in Westminster Hall later this evening, and it's called


New Dawn. Our Ellie has been given


an exclusive sneaky peak. New Dawn is about celebrating


all the women that fought for the vote,


and having it above the entrance to


St Stephens's, that's where all the women would have come in originally


at the time of the protests, and these are the steps


that they would have walked through, where


they were It is a very powerful


position to put the 180 different glass discs,


New Dawn has taken over a year to It is the first time a piece


of abstract art has been commissioned for permanent display


in Parliament, and MPs have been overseeing some of


the crucial points in the creative process,


and even When 14-year-old girls go around


Parliament, they see that Parliament is a place for them,


because if they were just to wander around, they would see lots


of commemorations of men, lots of They would see a statue


to Margaret Thatcher and a couple of busts,


but otherwise, they would be wondering


why it was such an alien Once all the glass was made,


the final piece was set up and tested in a warehouse in


West London, again, in front of an And even those involved


were taken aback. I hadn't visualised how


going to be, and it was only ten minutes ago


that I first saw it, and


When we first heard about Mary's concept, I'm not sure that any of us


appreciated that it would take kilometres of wiring


and the complexity of programming, but I think it is


something that is going to work fantastically well and be a proper


monument to the suffragettes in Parliament.


There is a reason for the technology, and it's not just


The whole thing is linked to the height of the River


Thames, so as the tide changes, this sequence will change.


We have settings for high tide, low tide and


It was a struggle that lasted more than 70 years, now a permanent


reminder for the hundreds of thousands of people who fought so


And the artist who designed and made the artwork,


It's beautiful. I haven't seen it in situ, but explain to me the discs.


OK. When I first started my residency in Parliament in 2014, I


went to look at the archives to build up an idea of the movement,


and to understand about women's suffrage. The first place I went to


was the Act Room, in Parliament, and it's an incredible space, filled


with hundreds of thousands of scrolls on vellum. I wanted to


include that within the artwork. That is what they represent? Yes.


And legislation and laws related to the suffragette movement. Have you


seen a? I haven't, and I am looking forward to. I think we take a


granted many of the rights that people have today, and there is a


degree of casual sexism, dare I say, Parliament. It shows that although


we have made great strides forward, we have some way to go. I looked at


some of the history of this, and the first meeting of the Parliamentary


Labour Party, and admittedly our meetings are blithely on a Monday...


They are at the moment! They are. But on the agenda was to look at how


to ensure that we got the ball from women in this country. Of course, it


was part of a wide coalition of people. The thing that in terms of


other installations, sculptures and bus that are there, that it does


still feel like a bastion of maleness? I have been over two years


now, and I was surprised that it doesn't feel like that to me. I


think there is another face of Parliament where everyone who works


within the building, it is very different from what I think people


perceive on the outside. But that is just my own interpretation and how I


felt while I was in Parliament. One of the things that was mentioned


that I didn't understand was that the installation changes with the


tides. Yes. How does that work? All the glass this could have LED lights


behind and they are individually driven -- all the glass desks have


LED lights. Why did you do that? All of the pictures and posters that I


discovered during my research said that you could not hold back the


tide of change, so I wanted to include that element in the artwork,


but I also wanted it to be a living artwork and relevant to women now


and what is happening within Parliament now. I wanted it to speed


to young women and ourselves. And the public can see it? All the time.


You can get tickets, go online to the parliamentary box office, and


then you can see it. Thank you for coming in.


There are plenty of events in the annual parliamentary calendar


worth getting into your diary - the Queen's Speech, the Budget,


And of course, the Lords versus MPs tug-of-war contest.


And in case you missed it, Giles went along to check out


Like pancakes and pet dogs, Parliament has its annual


traditions. The tug-of-war for Mike Millen Cancer support is one such


event, now 30 years old. And it comes with bells on. Some bubbles,


bugles, no strings attached, and of course, there is plenty of rope. If


you fancied the PM pulling against Mr Corbyn, I'm afraid not. I had


gone along merely to observe, when the House of Lords came calling.


Have I been ennobled? Once the ladies did the... Their best to beat


the ladies that are... I rushed back to the office to change. So it came


to pass that their Lordships and I took to the field of bad dreams, and


I appraise the Commons opposition. Is it rude to say that the MPs have


some rather large people? Ready, Paul! -- pull! Eight years. They


have done it. My help was not enough. Dam, that's exhausting. It


is, however, the taking part and not be winning that counts, and I was


proud to be part of the only occasion it is OK for politicians to


go won the pole. Great endline! We have been joined


by the Lib Dem peer Lord Addington, and the Conservative MP Graham


Evans. Was it the weight of the Commons that did it? Absolutely. I


would not say you were large, but you look quite beefy. We had the


largest member of the law steam and the smallest member of the Commons.


Do you blame Giles for losing? I would blame everyone but myself


because I am a politician. Was it your first time? It was my sixth


time. I would like to think we are pulling together for a good cause.


Why did you not take part? I wasn't asked. Next year. Was this your


first time? I am a veteran of the first time it happened, 29 years


ago. We won for the first few years where we had this battery of people


who spent their time wrestling cals on farms who would turn up and win.


-- wrestling cattle. Do you do any practice? Politics and tug-of-war


are both team games. Thank you, gentlemen. You deserve a


lie down. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. According to the Times,


what was Ed Balls up to at a London or d) tweeting about himself?


Richie classic, Endless Love, I think it was Endless Love, wasn't


it? It was. On that note, thank you for being my guest.


Thanks to Chuka Umunna and all my guests.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage


Download Subtitles