:00:40. > :00:44.It's been one year since the Government passed a law
:00:45. > :00:46.to ensure "English votes for English laws" at Westminster.
:00:47. > :00:49.But will it make any difference when it comes to big issues
:00:50. > :00:56.There's anger at the treatment of British troops accused of war
:00:57. > :00:59.crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan - but are investigators coming under
:01:00. > :01:04.Following the Brexit vote, there were reports of a rush
:01:05. > :01:08.to a second referendum on Scottish independence.
:01:09. > :01:12.We'll be asking when and if it might happen.
:01:13. > :01:15.It's not the hard left, more the soft left ? yes,
:01:16. > :01:17.you can even bring your teddy to Momentum's new activity
:01:18. > :01:31.We'll be getting the view of children's author Michael Rosen.
:01:32. > :01:35.You could bring your teddy bear, couldn't you? You have more than I
:01:36. > :01:36.have! And with us for the whole
:01:37. > :01:40.of the programme today, He used to be a TV presenter,
:01:41. > :01:44.you know, although he was never as famous as me and JoCo,
:01:45. > :01:47.and that might be why he gave up this life of unstinting
:01:48. > :01:49.sacrifice and public service for all the glamour,
:01:50. > :01:51.fame and riches that I think I've got that
:01:52. > :01:55.the right way round. Welcome to the show,
:01:56. > :01:58.John. First today, the Government has said
:01:59. > :02:05.it is committed to introducing a new law to pardon gay men
:02:06. > :02:07.convicted under historical The legislation has been referred
:02:08. > :02:11.to as the Alan Turing Law, after the World War II code breaker
:02:12. > :02:14.who was pardoned in 2013, decades after he was convicted
:02:15. > :02:18.of gross indecency in 1952. Relatives of Mr Turing,
:02:19. > :02:20.whose work was critical in Allied efforts to read
:02:21. > :02:24.German naval messages, have led a high-profile
:02:25. > :02:27.campaign to secure pardons for the 49,000 other men convicted
:02:28. > :02:33.under those laws. The Government promised to act
:02:34. > :02:35.in last year's election manifesto, and our guest of the day has already
:02:36. > :02:38.introduced a private member's bill to get the Turing Law
:02:39. > :02:48.onto the statute books. Are the proposal from the Government
:02:49. > :02:54.actually going to do what you would like to see in terms of pardoning
:02:55. > :03:00.these 49,000 men? I don't quite know yet. I won the Private members draw,
:03:01. > :03:07.and I decided with Government support that I would introduce the
:03:08. > :03:12.Turing law. The idea is that pardons would be given to all the people
:03:13. > :03:17.found guilty of a crime which is no longer a crime. It was interesting
:03:18. > :03:22.in terms of the politics, because you and Andrew know, I am a new MP,
:03:23. > :03:27.and when I won this, I was invited in to see the Tory whips. You walk
:03:28. > :03:32.down this corridor with posters of great Tory victories on either side,
:03:33. > :03:36.and you are taken into see the deputy Chief Whip. She said, I am
:03:37. > :03:40.keen for this to reach the statute book, if you run with it, there will
:03:41. > :03:47.be no tricks or games from the conservative side. That's
:03:48. > :03:54.reassuring! I felt like a lack -- I was in a scene from House Of Cards.
:03:55. > :04:01.One of the other whips said, you are delightfully naive, Mr Nicolson.
:04:02. > :04:04.Will it get the statute books? I don't know any more than you do
:04:05. > :04:10.about what the Government has said. My bill will be introduced on the
:04:11. > :04:15.21st as a Private members Bill. It is great to forgive all the people
:04:16. > :04:19.who are now dead, but it is kind of sentimental. I am interested in the
:04:20. > :04:26.people who asked alive and who have lived with this for decades. Would
:04:27. > :04:31.that include those people too? Yes, so my bill says that there will be
:04:32. > :04:37.pardons for anyone found guilty, alive or dead, of any crime that is
:04:38. > :04:41.no longer on the statute book. Typically, for example, if you were
:04:42. > :04:47.21 and you had a boyfriend who was 20, you could have been found guilty
:04:48. > :04:51.of having underage sex. We think that is absurd now, but these guys
:04:52. > :04:57.have criminal convictions will stop they lived with that, and it was a
:04:58. > :05:01.great shame for their families. That's right. So I think it is good
:05:02. > :05:05.to pardon those who have died, for the sake of their families, but it
:05:06. > :05:10.is important to pardon those who are still alive. I wonder why it is
:05:11. > :05:15.taking so long. I remember the apology from Gordon Brown in 2009
:05:16. > :05:20.for what happened to Alan Turing and others, and yet here we are in 2016
:05:21. > :05:26.and it is not there get. I made a film in 1992 for the BBC called A
:05:27. > :05:31.Question Of Consent, and I took Edwina Currie to Amsterdam to look
:05:32. > :05:40.at a quality in action. It was the first time she became interested.
:05:41. > :05:49.She had James Anderson -- James Anderton, God's copper. I remember
:05:50. > :05:56.him. His job was to come on to gay men in and if they responded, they
:05:57. > :06:01.would be arrested. It would be called entrapment now. I said it was
:06:02. > :06:06.a prurience thing to want to do with police time. He defended it and said
:06:07. > :06:09.it was the right thing to do. People caught by him still have criminal
:06:10. > :06:18.convictions, and I want to give them some peace. Keypads in touch with
:06:19. > :06:29.what happens with the bill. -- keep us. It is time for our daily quiz.
:06:30. > :06:31.The question for today is about an hour-long documentary
:06:32. > :06:34.It was released online yesterday and it was made
:06:35. > :06:48.At the end of the show, John will give us the correct
:06:49. > :07:00.You hope! I think we know who it wasn't!
:07:01. > :07:02."English votes for English laws" was the mechanism introduced
:07:03. > :07:04.by David Cameron's government to answer concerns about the ability
:07:05. > :07:06.of Scottish MPs to veto legislation that applied only
:07:07. > :07:10.It's known at Westminster by the menacing-sounding acronym
:07:11. > :07:13.Evel, and it's been in place for a year.
:07:14. > :07:17.Theresa May's government says it is going to review the
:07:18. > :07:23.So, what exactly is it, and is it working?
:07:24. > :07:26.Think back two years ago to the morning after the Scottish
:07:27. > :07:31.David Cameron stood on the steps of Downing Street and said
:07:32. > :07:37.new powers for Scotland should be balanced by "English
:07:38. > :07:41.It was an attempt to answer the so-called "West Lothian
:07:42. > :07:43.Question", which concerns Scottish MPs voting on matters that
:07:44. > :07:48.Under rules introduced last October, the Speaker, John Bercow,
:07:49. > :07:54.now decides if each new law applies only to England,
:07:55. > :08:00.A new stage in the law-making process was also created,
:08:01. > :08:04.the Legislative Grand Committee, where only MPs from
:08:05. > :08:08.The changes came into effect in January.
:08:09. > :08:13.So far, the Speaker has certified 11 bills under what is known as Evel,
:08:14. > :08:18.including on housing and policing and crime.
:08:19. > :08:21.And there have been 14 divisions on other pieces of legislation
:08:22. > :08:23.in which only English or English and Welsh
:08:24. > :08:29.But the controversy hasn't gone away.
:08:30. > :08:31.The Government was forced to shelve a vote last summer on relaxing
:08:32. > :08:33.the fox-hunting ban in England and Wales,
:08:34. > :08:35.after the Scottish National Party pledged to vote
:08:36. > :08:41.Now, there are suggestions the SNP could attempt to block
:08:42. > :08:45.Theresa May's plans for grammar schools in England.
:08:46. > :08:49.And the Government is now carrying out a review of the process.
:08:50. > :08:51.Leader of the Commons David Lidington told MPs the details
:08:52. > :08:59.Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Conservative MP
:09:00. > :09:06.Chris Philp, and of course, John Nicolson is still here.
:09:07. > :09:13.Chris, is it working? It is a good start in the sense that it means
:09:14. > :09:16.that for the first time English MPs have effectively a veto over
:09:17. > :09:24.measures that only affect England, which did not exist before, and it
:09:25. > :09:27.is a small step to stop the unfairness whereby Scottish MPs can
:09:28. > :09:33.vote on matters that affect only England but England's's MPs don't
:09:34. > :09:36.have the reciprocal right. When you say a beta, what do you mean? I
:09:37. > :09:49.thought the purpose was not a veto but -- veto. It is still subject to
:09:50. > :09:52.a vote by the whole house. Even if English members vote for something,
:09:53. > :09:56.it could still be voted down by the house as a health. It has not
:09:57. > :10:02.happened so far, but it is a power of veto, not to positively
:10:03. > :10:06.legislate. The ban on fox hunting, which was only for England and
:10:07. > :10:11.Wales, the Government withdrew that when the SNP said they would vote
:10:12. > :10:16.against it. Is that not a huge hole in the middle of what you're trying
:10:17. > :10:19.to do? In that situation, if the whole house could vote against it,
:10:20. > :10:26.it would not progress. Nicola Sturgeon said clearly in February 20
:10:27. > :10:33.oh that's right 2015, the SNP members would not be voting on
:10:34. > :10:38.England only matters. Come July 2015, just a few months later, she
:10:39. > :10:41.did a U-turn and decided that fox hunting in England was of such
:10:42. > :10:45.critical importance in Scotland that they would vote on it after all,
:10:46. > :10:51.which I thought was shamelessly opportunistic. What was the logic of
:10:52. > :10:54.the SNP voting on it? Did you worry that you would be inundated with
:10:55. > :10:57.leaking Fox's? PHONE RINGS
:10:58. > :11:06.I was inundated with Tory MPs asking us to vote on that, actually. A lot
:11:07. > :11:13.of people don't realise how many Conservative -- I was inundated with
:11:14. > :11:16.Tory MPs. People don't realise how many Conservative MPs were against
:11:17. > :11:22.it. She did change her mind, Nicola Sturgeon, which I think politicians
:11:23. > :11:26.are allowed to do. My view was, I am strongly against blood sports, and I
:11:27. > :11:33.thought we were right to vote on it. Although you mention Fox's crossing
:11:34. > :11:42.the border in jest, the hunt do not respect the border. There used to be
:11:43. > :11:47.a rule which was broadly adhered to by the Scottish Nationalists that
:11:48. > :11:51.you didn't vote on what you would regard as England only matters. That
:11:52. > :11:59.seems to have gone by the wayside. What is the rule now? Since I have
:12:00. > :12:05.been in the House of Commons, the issue as always been whether or not
:12:06. > :12:09.it has a knock-on financial effect, with the exception of the fox
:12:10. > :12:13.hunting one which you raise. I say to you why we said we would vote on
:12:14. > :12:19.that. You could not have carried the Tory backbenches on it anyway, in
:12:20. > :12:24.errant irony. A Barnett consequential would be the thing we
:12:25. > :12:27.would vote on. If it comes to the House, will you vote on Theresa
:12:28. > :12:33.May's plans on grammar schools for England? We don't know yet. It will
:12:34. > :12:38.depend on whether there are financial implications or not.
:12:39. > :12:41.Whether it is done on the existing education budget or a bit more is
:12:42. > :12:45.added to the budget to greatly schools, which of course you would
:12:46. > :12:52.get benefit from, even though you want be introducing grammar schools?
:12:53. > :12:57.Where would the negative consequential be? I will have to see
:12:58. > :13:04.the detail, which I don't yet know. You are kind of making it up as you
:13:05. > :13:08.go along. No, really. The financial implications are key. Can you point
:13:09. > :13:16.me to other examples where the SNP has intervened? It is not in our
:13:17. > :13:20.voting record in the last year. Sunday trading was something you
:13:21. > :13:23.were accused of turning into an opportunistic example of voting on
:13:24. > :13:28.something that would not affect you directly. It did not go beyond
:13:29. > :13:34.preliminary discussions. There was a vote on it, and the SNP voted
:13:35. > :13:37.against the Government's motion. As a result, Sunday trading laws in
:13:38. > :13:44.Croydon had been affected by your vote. I can't vote on Sunday trading
:13:45. > :13:48.in your constituency, so it is not fair. Barnett consequential are made
:13:49. > :13:55.up as a tiny figleaf to excuse basically troublemaking. I like it
:13:56. > :13:58.that if we don't help you get your legislation through we are
:13:59. > :14:06.troublemakers. You can't carry your backbenches. They are hostile. That
:14:07. > :14:10.is his problem. It is his problem. You are not there to help the Tory
:14:11. > :14:15.party, so why are you making the point? Because he is talking as if
:14:16. > :14:18.the Tory party is united on these issues and it is only a bunch of
:14:19. > :14:29.troublemakers in the air sent P Hu... There could be an issue. -- in
:14:30. > :14:35.the SNP who... Do you agree that if a vote on grammar schools comes
:14:36. > :14:38.before the Commons and it is clearly an English only matter, if the
:14:39. > :14:45.Scottish Nationalists are able to vote under the EVEL rules, there is
:14:46. > :14:52.a coach and horses through EVEL that makes it relevant? It was only ever
:14:53. > :14:56.a veto, but it would expose the weakness you are talking about. It
:14:57. > :14:59.would mean that English MPs alone cannot get something through. It
:15:00. > :15:03.would be good to strengthen the reform not to make it just a power
:15:04. > :15:08.of veto but a power of legislation as well, where the Scots did not
:15:09. > :15:12.have a veto. On fox hunting, I may well have voted against it, as you
:15:13. > :15:18.did or would have done. That is not the point. The point is that it is
:15:19. > :15:20.not fair for Scottish MPs to vote on matters that do not affect them at
:15:21. > :15:30.all. Can I just clarify - is it your
:15:31. > :15:38.desire to toughen this up? Well, I think there is a case for looking at
:15:39. > :15:43.that. If the SNP show... Governments are always tinkering. But I think if
:15:44. > :15:47.the SNP respect the spirit of what is intended and leave the grammar
:15:48. > :15:51.school legislation and similar things alone, then I think we could
:15:52. > :15:55.say the system is working. If on the other hand they abuse the current
:15:56. > :16:03.arrangements, and I would put it as strongly as abuse, then we need to
:16:04. > :16:07.look at it. I'm not sure what that means you should do! Because this is
:16:08. > :16:12.very complicated, this business. I think it was William Hague, of
:16:13. > :16:16.course, he's not there any more, but he put it together. If this is the
:16:17. > :16:21.way you want to go roster whether that's right is another matter - but
:16:22. > :16:26.if it was the way you wanted to go, what would be wrong with the Speaker
:16:27. > :16:30.designating a bill as England only, and you simply say, Scottish MPs
:16:31. > :16:34.cannot vote on that matter? That's effectively what I'm suggesting we
:16:35. > :16:40.would need to look at if they, as it were, misbehave and abuse the
:16:41. > :16:45.current system. The danger is that you start creating an English
:16:46. > :16:49.Parliament by the back door. You need to think carefully before you
:16:50. > :16:52.tinker with the constitution. Scotland has got a parliament, Wales
:16:53. > :16:56.has got a parliament. We're all being moved out of the crumbling
:16:57. > :16:59.House of Commons. It's the perfect time for you to set up an endless
:17:00. > :17:03.Parliament and resolve this issue. And place it in the north of
:17:04. > :17:10.England? Which would be even more fabulous. Some would say we have got
:17:11. > :17:15.enough Parliaments already. You're creating more lords, you will have
:17:16. > :17:20.more lords than MPs. Cut them. Whether Scotland ends up independent
:17:21. > :17:24.or not, the whole trend of British constitutional policy is for further
:17:25. > :17:28.devolution - devolution to Scotland, more powers for Wales and Northern
:17:29. > :17:31.Ireland and devolution to some extent, although more
:17:32. > :17:36.administrative, within England itself, in Manchester and all the
:17:37. > :17:40.rest of it. If that's the direction of travel, which it seems clear it
:17:41. > :17:46.has been since before Mr Blair, would it not make sense to look at
:17:47. > :17:51.an English Parliament? As I say, I think you mess around with the
:17:52. > :17:53.constitution with caution. These are complicated, long-standing
:17:54. > :17:56.traditions. We have enough politicians already, local councils,
:17:57. > :18:01.county councils, a huge number already. The reason the SNP are keen
:18:02. > :18:05.to see an English parliament is because they think it will pick the
:18:06. > :18:08.ties... I don't think you're giving me friendly advice, I think you're
:18:09. > :18:17.trying to unpick the ties. Anyway, we've run out of time! I'm just
:18:18. > :18:20.saying it's a good idea. We will come back to Evel, however you
:18:21. > :18:25.pronounce it. Evel sounds less sinister! And anyway, you don't
:18:26. > :18:33.spell evil like that! Theresa May has been under pressure! You might
:18:34. > :18:38.pronounce it like that! She has been to a grammar school, hasn't she? No,
:18:39. > :18:41.actually! Theresa May has been under
:18:42. > :18:43.pressure this week to scrap the Iraq Historic Allegations Team,
:18:44. > :18:46.which is handling some 1,500 allegations of murder,
:18:47. > :18:48.abuse and torture carried out by British soldiers
:18:49. > :18:50.during the conflict in Iraq. This morning's Daily Telegraph
:18:51. > :18:52.reports that a further 550 historic allegations of crimes committed
:18:53. > :18:54.by British troops in Afghanistan are also under investigation,
:18:55. > :18:56.leading to claims from senior political and military figures that
:18:57. > :18:58.many of the allegations The prime minister was asked
:18:59. > :19:02.about the claims on her trip to the United Nations this
:19:03. > :19:06.week, and she said... "We should all be proud
:19:07. > :19:08.of our armed forces." We can be proud of the disciplined
:19:09. > :19:27.way in which our armed Ihat, the Iraq Historic Allegations
:19:28. > :19:31.Team, will be able to focus on cases where there may be
:19:32. > :19:34.questions of allegations." Well, we're joined
:19:35. > :19:37.now by Tim Collins. He led the 1st Batallion Irish
:19:38. > :19:43.Regiment in Iraq, and he has said that many of the allegations are
:19:44. > :19:53.being made by "parasitic lawyers". Welcome to the programme - how do
:19:54. > :19:56.you distinguish between a legitimate and vexatious claim? Well, I think
:19:57. > :20:01.that throughout the conflict, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan as
:20:02. > :20:04.well, and remember we also have large caseload of investigations
:20:05. > :20:09.from Northern Ireland, is Russian forces operations there. And I think
:20:10. > :20:15.certainly looking at Iraq, the military police on the ground have
:20:16. > :20:20.already investigated these things. But if someone saw an opportunity to
:20:21. > :20:23.make a fast buck, and that was facilitated by government, and now
:20:24. > :20:26.it has become a runaway train. When you look at the depth and the
:20:27. > :20:31.complicity of the lies that we are told in these enquiries, you have to
:20:32. > :20:37.say, enough. At it is difficult to distinguish between the two - you
:20:38. > :20:41.don't I presume want to shop down the jet claims of abuse and torture
:20:42. > :20:44.as per international treaties wanted it is a bit like, do you keep
:20:45. > :20:48.looking at these things until you get the answer you want, like the
:20:49. > :20:54.referendum? You have described it as an industry. It is an industry. And
:20:55. > :20:58.in terms of the numbers cases reported today, 550 - is that what
:20:59. > :21:04.makes it an industry as well as the money that's involved? Well, I think
:21:05. > :21:10.again, it's a runaway train. There is 550 cases, 157 complaints, ?7.5
:21:11. > :21:15.million has been put into its. There's 124 MPs investigating it. So
:21:16. > :21:19.far they have dismissed 16 cases and there has not been a single case of
:21:20. > :21:24.wrongdoing found. But would it be right not to look at them at all? If
:21:25. > :21:29.you're saying this is an industry... They're look that at a certain
:21:30. > :21:36.level. The bottom line is, and I think it reaches a wider spectrum,
:21:37. > :21:38.that this industry depends on applying the rule which applies on
:21:39. > :21:43.the street here in London to the battlefield elsewhere. If that's
:21:44. > :21:47.what we want, then we should not be deploying troops. And furthermore, I
:21:48. > :21:51.think it is now got to a point where we are about to see the worm
:21:52. > :21:54.turning. Think there is going to be military people bringing cases
:21:55. > :21:58.against the Government for harassment, and then it is going to
:21:59. > :22:02.turn into an awful dogfight. The problem is, the leadership of the
:22:03. > :22:06.military have so lost confidence of the rank and file, it might even be
:22:07. > :22:09.time that we need a union in the military to start dealing with this,
:22:10. > :22:13.because that's what would happen in industry. If we're going to apply
:22:14. > :22:17.industry standards, then we've got to apply unions. If you don't want,
:22:18. > :22:21.as you say, the laws of the street, what levels of law being applied to
:22:22. > :22:25.troops should be there? Well, what we've done for the last couple of
:22:26. > :22:29.hundred years, we have military law. It's what we did in the Second World
:22:30. > :22:33.War, it's what we did in Korea. We've moved the goalposts and
:22:34. > :22:37.discovered why we shouldn't have moved the goalposts - it's time to
:22:38. > :22:39.move them back. What would your response be? The law society has
:22:40. > :22:44.responded, saying that everybody needs protection. And some of these
:22:45. > :22:49.cases are being put forward by the most vulnerable. And there have been
:22:50. > :22:53.cases of alleged torture and abuse by British troops which need to be
:22:54. > :22:58.investigated, and they've got a point? They do have a point, because
:22:59. > :23:01.Tim also has a point - we have a duty of care to these soldiers,
:23:02. > :23:06.these very young soldiers. Many of them are going from the UK, they
:23:07. > :23:10.have never been abroad, and suddenly they are expected to switch roles,
:23:11. > :23:14.aren't they, from being warriors to be in police, in very different
:23:15. > :23:18.circumstances? Tim knows better than anybody else how difficult it is to
:23:19. > :23:25.tell these young soldiers that although they've been fighting an
:23:26. > :23:30.enemy, under all circumstances they've got to treat the enemy with
:23:31. > :23:34.respect. I think it's very important for us to remain there that we have
:23:35. > :23:39.a duty of care to these soldiers. Of course we must absolutely respect
:23:40. > :23:43.the law. Equally, we must run with a terrible strain the soldiers have
:23:44. > :23:47.been under. But that is the onus on the military, to train the armed
:23:48. > :23:51.forces so that they understand that, as well as to protect them from any
:23:52. > :23:54.miscarriage of justice which might be thrown their way? There not being
:23:55. > :23:58.protected from miscarriage of justice. Is that because the
:23:59. > :24:00.military isn't doing it? The military commanders are so
:24:01. > :24:04.frightened of the lawyers. Of course the lawyers are the ones who will
:24:05. > :24:08.gain from this. Of course the law society want that in their pocket.
:24:09. > :24:15.The bottom line is, it's easier for a commander now to take a risk with
:24:16. > :24:18.a soldier called life, and lose a soldier dead, that can be explained.
:24:19. > :24:20.But if you take the opportunity to protect your men and you do the
:24:21. > :24:25.wrong thing, you will go to court. That can't be right. The balance has
:24:26. > :24:30.tipped, according to Tim Collins, so how do you redress it? There have
:24:31. > :24:34.been much publicised cases people dying in military custody, one of
:24:35. > :24:38.them many years ago, back in 2003, and a public inquiry said it was an
:24:39. > :24:43.episode of serious, gratuitous violence. It's important to
:24:44. > :24:46.remember, it's not the law versus the army. I've interviewed many,
:24:47. > :24:50.many soldiers, and decent, honourable soldiers are not
:24:51. > :24:54.supporting the bad apples. Where there have been cases of abuse or
:24:55. > :24:58.illegality, soldiers want these to be rooted out. Soldiers want these
:24:59. > :25:03.people to be prosecuted. Or accusations of cover-ups? Soldiers
:25:04. > :25:06.do not want there to be a cover-up. When they behave honourably, they
:25:07. > :25:09.want to be defended by their commander, and where there are bad
:25:10. > :25:14.apples, they want them to be uncovered. You make a very valid
:25:15. > :25:17.point. These people are not turning up at a police station in Iraq or
:25:18. > :25:21.Afghanistan to complain. These allegations are all being made by
:25:22. > :25:24.someone from within the military, to say they saw something, and that's
:25:25. > :25:29.when the vultures come in to start picking at the corpse. I take your
:25:30. > :25:35.point that people in the military are more frightened of the lawyers
:25:36. > :25:40.than they would be, perhaps. Whistle-blowers, reporting these
:25:41. > :25:44.things. But the point is, the chap we were talking about was a
:25:45. > :25:47.notorious bomb maker. He is looking for compensation from our courts, a
:25:48. > :25:52.reward for killing soldiers. Are we going to give him that? Yes, we
:25:53. > :25:55.probably are. In terms of the amount of money that's been spent, six will
:25:56. > :25:59.say, it's costing millions in the context of a war which is costing
:26:00. > :26:04.billions is that not a small price to pay to make sure human rights and
:26:05. > :26:07.international law is upheld. In my house, I tell my children to turn
:26:08. > :26:12.the lights off to stop wasting money. I don't care if it's one like
:26:13. > :26:15.or every light in the house. You don't leave the tap running, this is
:26:16. > :26:19.public money, it can't be wasted. What do you think should happen,
:26:20. > :26:25.then? How do you stop this industry spreading? It's a very difficult
:26:26. > :26:29.question. We've seen a huge rise in ambulance chasers in the last 25 in
:26:30. > :26:34.30 years, it was not something that I remember from years before. I
:26:35. > :26:37.think Tim is fundamentally right. I think soldiers have got to feel with
:26:38. > :26:42.certainty that when they go to their commanding officer, they will be
:26:43. > :26:44.taken seriously. If they whistle-blower, they will be
:26:45. > :26:49.defended, it will not be considered dishonourable. The military has got
:26:50. > :26:55.to protect its own, and the legal system also has got to protect
:26:56. > :26:57.soldiers and also, where necessary, victims. Thank you.
:26:58. > :27:01.Now, leaked documents published today show that
:27:02. > :27:04.new Home Secretary Amber Rudd used to be a director of two offshore
:27:05. > :27:09.There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mrs Rudd, but her critics say
:27:10. > :27:11.the revelations are embarrassing for the Government, which has
:27:12. > :27:16.prioritised cracking down on tax havens.
:27:17. > :27:21.A spokesperson for the home secretary told the Guardian that it
:27:22. > :27:23.is a matter of public record that Amber had a career in this area
:27:24. > :27:25.before joining politics. Joining us now is Molly Scott Cato
:27:26. > :27:28.MEP for South-West England, and a member of the European
:27:29. > :27:44.Parliament's inquiry committee Molly Scott Cato, what has Amber
:27:45. > :27:48.Rudd Dunne? We have heard that she was a director of two of these
:27:49. > :27:52.companies, notorious tax havens. So what we're calling for a day is for
:27:53. > :27:55.Amber Rudd to come and make a much fuller statement, probably a
:27:56. > :27:59.statement which include details of what the directorships was about and
:28:00. > :28:02.how much money she made from them. The suspicion is, when people set up
:28:03. > :28:06.a company in the Bahamas, they're not doing it because... They are
:28:07. > :28:10.doing it because it is at the heart of a nexus of tax avoidance and it
:28:11. > :28:13.is totally inappropriate for a government minister to be involved
:28:14. > :28:17.in something like that. Do you have evidence that Amber Road was
:28:18. > :28:19.involved in tax avoidance or tax evasion through these directorships?
:28:20. > :28:24.These are the questions that need to be answered. Do you have evidence?
:28:25. > :28:27.We have evidence that she was eye rector of two asset management
:28:28. > :28:31.companies. That in itself is not illegal but it does not smell right,
:28:32. > :28:35.when Theresa May came into power, she said you wanted to work for the
:28:36. > :28:38.many, not the few. She was going to clean up capitalism and so on. I
:28:39. > :28:42.think she needs to be asking Amber Rudd questions and we need more
:28:43. > :28:46.information in the public domain. You have said that it is difficult
:28:47. > :28:49.to see how the Prime Minister can continue to have confidence in Amber
:28:50. > :28:52.Rudd, but you can give us no examples this morning of any
:28:53. > :29:00.illegality or any dodgy tax work by Amber Rudd, so why? What evidence do
:29:01. > :29:05.you have? Is this just an attempt to get some publicity? What evidence to
:29:06. > :29:10.you have that she has done anything wrong? An awful lot of this is about
:29:11. > :29:13.appearance, and the appearance here is all wrong. The companies were
:29:14. > :29:19.based in the Bahamas. There's reasons for that... It was 1998!
:29:20. > :29:24.That's right. It is historic evidence. And the law on tax
:29:25. > :29:29.avoidance was totally different from what it is now! It comes together to
:29:30. > :29:32.bring a picture of a government which is not living up to the
:29:33. > :29:36.standards it set itself. If Amber Rudd can come forward and defend
:29:37. > :29:41.these allegations, let her do that. This government says it is focused
:29:42. > :29:46.on tax transparency, and ending tax avoidance, but we have someone who
:29:47. > :29:50.came forward to doom defend David Cameron where his name cropped up in
:29:51. > :29:54.these allegations, but she did not say anything about herself at that
:29:55. > :29:58.time. So because somebody was a director of a company for two years
:29:59. > :30:02.over 16 years ago, that makes them unfit to be a government minister,
:30:03. > :30:07.even though you can bring no sense of illegality or wrongdoing to this
:30:08. > :30:11.argument? You may think that's fine, Theresa May may think it's fine, but
:30:12. > :30:15.I can tell you, the people I represent are scandalised that this
:30:16. > :30:21.sort of behaviour goes on, whether it's rich companies all rich
:30:22. > :30:24.individuals avoiding tax. But do you have any evidence that she actually
:30:25. > :30:31.earned any money from these two offshore funds for two years?
:30:32. > :30:39.That is what protects people, secrecy. She was encouraging
:30:40. > :30:41.transparency. Should you not have encouraged her to come forward
:30:42. > :30:45.before you deigned to call for the Prime Minister to get rid of her?
:30:46. > :30:50.The fact she has been the director of two companies in the Bahamas is
:30:51. > :30:55.bad enough, because it has the wrong type of tone. That this qualifies
:30:56. > :31:01.even though it was 16 years ago and there was no issue of illegality? It
:31:02. > :31:07.is a question for Theresa May to answer. I am asking you because you
:31:08. > :31:10.brought it up. It is important to be critical of Government and allow
:31:11. > :31:14.them to account their past behaviour as well as their present behaviour.
:31:15. > :31:20.I am not impressed by a senior member of the Government profiting
:31:21. > :31:25.from activity in a tax haven. So if we find that any Green party member
:31:26. > :31:35.has had an ass -- an historic connection with offshore tax havens,
:31:36. > :31:43.going back 15, 20 years, they would have to leave the Government or the
:31:44. > :31:47.party? Surely the attitude is the same. If it is wrong to do it if
:31:48. > :31:51.you're a Government minister, it must be wrong if you are Ray Green
:31:52. > :31:59.activist campaigning against tax avoidance. Of course it is wrong.
:32:00. > :32:02.Amber Rudd is supposed to be upholding high standards of this
:32:03. > :32:06.new, clean form of capitalism that works for us all, and her past
:32:07. > :32:10.business record does not live up to it. She has called for reforms on
:32:11. > :32:16.the offshore system now. She says it is important and as you will know,
:32:17. > :32:21.since 2000, there have been huge changes to make tax havens more
:32:22. > :32:25.transparent. There are OECD agreements, EU agreements. You are
:32:26. > :32:31.on the committee, so you must know. She herself has said it is time that
:32:32. > :32:36.we put 25 new measures in place by 2021 to get transparency on tax
:32:37. > :32:41.matters. What is your problem? The words sound good, but current and
:32:42. > :32:50.past actions don't live up to them. Can you let me get to the end of
:32:51. > :32:55.one... The Government has taken the lead on OECD recommendations. That
:32:56. > :32:58.is action. The recommendations don't go far enough. We need full
:32:59. > :33:03.information to come out, and we still have tax havens where the
:33:04. > :33:07.information is being concealed, and there are still close relationships
:33:08. > :33:11.between those havens and the City of London. That is what does not smell
:33:12. > :33:15.right from a Government that says it will set itself higher standards. If
:33:16. > :33:22.you discover that a Green party donor has had legitimate and legal
:33:23. > :33:27.directorship of an offshore company an attack saving, will you hand the
:33:28. > :33:34.money back? If it were down to me, I would. It is not legitimate to
:33:35. > :33:39.accept money who it -- money from people who have been involved in tax
:33:40. > :33:48.havens. Even if it were 20 years ago? We all, in public life, need to
:33:49. > :33:52.live up to the higher standards and we need to expect the highest
:33:53. > :33:57.standards from donors. This is the Home Secretary, someone who sets the
:33:58. > :34:01.tone. She has nothing to do with tax policy. She is one of the key
:34:02. > :34:05.ministers in Government. I do think it is good enough. Let's hear from
:34:06. > :34:11.her and let the public decide. You have already made up your mind. The
:34:12. > :34:16.public are not happy with people with that level of responsibility
:34:17. > :34:20.acting in any way that smacks of tax avoidance. There is a great deal of
:34:21. > :34:23.unhappiness out there on this issue. Thank you for joining us.
:34:24. > :34:25.Now, there's still plenty of speculation in Scotland
:34:26. > :34:28.if and when Nicola Sturgeon might call for a second
:34:29. > :34:31.Immediately after the Brexit vote, the First Minister said a second
:34:32. > :34:34.referendum was "highly likely", but with the polls not showing
:34:35. > :34:36.clear public support, in recent days it's been suggested
:34:37. > :34:38.that the SNP has put another vote on the back burner.
:34:39. > :34:41.Well, we're joined now by our Scotland Editor, Sarah Smith.
:34:42. > :34:57.Nice to see you again. What do the polls say at the moment on Scottish
:34:58. > :35:04.independence? If Nicola Sturgeon was relying on a Brexit bounce to in
:35:05. > :35:10.increase support for independence, she will be disappointed. There was
:35:11. > :35:15.a poll showing support independence over 50% just after the Brexit vote.
:35:16. > :35:19.The most recent poll was published on Sunday, to coincide with the
:35:20. > :35:23.second anniversary of the independence referendum, and it
:35:24. > :35:25.showed support at 48% of top it is not easy for the First Minister to
:35:26. > :35:30.make a decision because she has previously said she would not want
:35:31. > :35:33.to call another referendum unless there was sustained support at
:35:34. > :35:37.around the 60% mark. We know that polls are not always entirely
:35:38. > :35:43.accurate, but if it is polling below 50%, it is hard to see how she could
:35:44. > :35:47.call another vote. What is the policy at the moment? Is it to have
:35:48. > :35:52.another referendum as soon as possible, or to wait until the
:35:53. > :35:59.Brexit deal is done, and we all then know the terms of the divorce, and
:36:00. > :36:03.then have the referendum? Is there any clarity on the timetable for the
:36:04. > :36:07.principles that could govern a second referendum? There is a debate
:36:08. > :36:12.going on within the party about that. Senior SNP figures are keen to
:36:13. > :36:16.go for a vote soon, some of them. They are talking about 2018. The
:36:17. > :36:22.reasoning would be that if Scotland votes were independence before the
:36:23. > :36:25.UK exits the EU, Benny Howell that maybe Scotland could be a continuing
:36:26. > :36:33.member and never leave the EU. There are others who think that would be
:36:34. > :36:39.too soon. -- then they hope that maybe Scotland. There are people who
:36:40. > :36:44.think that maybe if the Conservatives were to win another
:36:45. > :36:48.general election in 2020, and the Tories still have only one MP in
:36:49. > :36:56.Scotland at the moment, that that would look like more of a democratic
:36:57. > :37:00.deficit and would show that the rest of the UK and Scotland are going in
:37:01. > :37:05.different political directions, and that might be a better Rodman for
:37:06. > :37:11.independence. Sarah Smith, in a sunny and beautiful looking Glass
:37:12. > :37:14.School. It was always thus! You and I know that is not true!
:37:15. > :37:17.We are now joined by former Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth,
:37:18. > :37:19.and the SNP's John Nicolson is still here.
:37:20. > :37:25.John Nicolson, what is your view? When do you think there should be,
:37:26. > :37:33.if you think there should be a second referendum? I believe in
:37:34. > :37:37.independence so I think there should be. Sarah's analysis is spot on.
:37:38. > :37:41.There are a lot of new members who have joined the party, over 100,000
:37:42. > :37:46.members, and a lot of these people have come across from the Labour
:37:47. > :37:50.Party in particular and they are desperate to see a referendum as
:37:51. > :37:55.soon as possible. When would you like to see it? We are in a bit of a
:37:56. > :37:59.phoney war at the moment, because we voted for Brexit but we don't know
:38:00. > :38:04.the deal that is on the table. Sarah is right - the polls still show less
:38:05. > :38:09.than 50% of people supporting independence. So you don't want one
:38:10. > :38:14.now? You don't want to hold a referendum until you think you're
:38:15. > :38:17.going to win it. People. To focus on what Brexit actually means, and I
:38:18. > :38:22.don't think the Prime Minister can keep up this line she uses, which
:38:23. > :38:25.is, we are not prepared to give a running commentary on the
:38:26. > :38:29.negotiations. People south and north of the border are going to want to
:38:30. > :38:35.know what the deal is. I understand that, but I know that your party has
:38:36. > :38:41.several views on this. I'm trying to determine yours. OK. Should you have
:38:42. > :38:44.a referendum during the Brexit negotiations, or should you wait
:38:45. > :38:49.until you know the shape of the deal and then call a referendum? On
:38:50. > :38:52.balance, I think we should know the shape of the deal so that people
:38:53. > :39:01.know of what they are broadly conform. -- voting for. That would
:39:02. > :39:05.be the fairest thing, so that the question they are being asked is put
:39:06. > :39:12.with the most information possible on the table. So not before another
:39:13. > :39:22.two years at least? That is my view. Michael Forsyth, is it not
:39:23. > :39:26.inevitable, since Scotland voted to remain in the EU, that this Scottish
:39:27. > :39:31.independence business is back on the agenda? I don't think so at all. If
:39:32. > :39:34.the SNP want to hold another referendum, they should fight an
:39:35. > :39:38.election with a manifesto that makes that clear. Their manifesto actually
:39:39. > :39:41.said, we believe that the Scottish parliament should have the right to
:39:42. > :39:46.hold another referendum if it's clear that more than half the people
:39:47. > :39:49.in Scotland want independence. We have Alex Salmond saying something
:39:50. > :39:55.different from Nicola Sturgeon. And the most striking thing is the
:39:56. > :40:01.contempt that the SNP show for the clear decision, 55% of the Scottish
:40:02. > :40:07.people voted to remain part of the UK. In their manifesto, they said,
:40:08. > :40:10.in 2014, we held a referendum that got people across the country
:40:11. > :40:15.talking about what kind of nation we want to be and how we want to be
:40:16. > :40:20.governed. No, we didn't. We took a clear decision which Alex Salmond
:40:21. > :40:24.holders was a once in a generation chance. They are damaging Scotland,
:40:25. > :40:30.creating uncertainty and reinforcing the view that you can't believe
:40:31. > :40:34.anything politicians tell you. What politicians, Unionist politicians,
:40:35. > :40:39.told the Scottish people was that the only sure way of remaining
:40:40. > :40:46.inside the EU, which was the settled will of Scotland, was to vote for
:40:47. > :40:51.the union. An independent Scotland could not be guaranteed to be inside
:40:52. > :40:58.the EU, and now that sure way has turned out to be a sure way to the
:40:59. > :41:03.door. Because of a decision made by the British people. I have to say,
:41:04. > :41:06.the only argument I can think of in favour of independence that would
:41:07. > :41:13.have been the vote for it was as a way of getting out of the EU. As
:41:14. > :41:21.with many of your views, that is a minority view in Scotland. Indeed,
:41:22. > :41:24.it is. When you say it is a minority view in Scotland, it is a properly
:41:25. > :41:29.held view among Scottish Nationalist. If you look at Dundee,
:41:30. > :41:32.the most nationalist town in Scotland, 40% of the people there
:41:33. > :41:36.voted to leave the EU, because there are a lot of people who believe that
:41:37. > :41:41.Scotland should have more control of their own affairs and realise that
:41:42. > :41:47.staying part of the EU is a contradiction. John Nicolson, if you
:41:48. > :41:51.were to have this referendum, so the Brexit deal is done, and Britain is
:41:52. > :42:00.on the way out, and we know the terms that we are out on, I've guess
:42:01. > :42:04.we're talking about 2019 -- I guess. Could you go to the Scottish people
:42:05. > :42:09.and guarantee that if Scotland voted to leave the UK, it would
:42:10. > :42:16.automatically be a member of the EU? We don't know that yet.
:42:17. > :42:22.Certainly,... You could end up being out of both? Michael Forsyth is
:42:23. > :42:31.laughing. It takes some hot spot for a Tory politician -- it takes some
:42:32. > :42:38.nerve for a Tory politician to laugh when they promised it was how to
:42:39. > :42:46.stay in the EU. But you could be -- you could be out of the UK and out
:42:47. > :42:51.of the EU. People know that the UK as a whole is leaving. There is a
:42:52. > :42:56.lot to be said for rewarding Scotland for being good Europeans
:42:57. > :43:03.and for allowing Scotland to continue to be Europeans. The
:43:04. > :43:09.European Union is then -- is in the business of expanding, as Euro
:43:10. > :43:13.sceptics point out. And the expansion for new members includes
:43:14. > :43:18.taking the euro, and it includes becoming part of the Schengen area.
:43:19. > :43:22.In an independent Scotland, if it were to be part of Schengen, there
:43:23. > :43:25.would have to be border controls at Carlisle and Berwick. It is
:43:26. > :43:32.uncharted territory. INAUDIBLE
:43:33. > :43:36.It is. In Northern Ireland, -- it is. In Northern Ireland, they are
:43:37. > :43:39.having a debate about open borders. The Government has made it clear to
:43:40. > :43:46.Irish politicians that there would not be a hard border. Because we're
:43:47. > :43:49.not a member of Schengen, but you might have to accept Schengen
:43:50. > :44:02.membership in order to be part of the EU. You rightly say that a lot
:44:03. > :44:08.of these issues are upper negotiation. It is early days. It
:44:09. > :44:13.would be a huge gamble, would it not, for Scotland to vote to leave
:44:14. > :44:17.the United Kingdom, particularly given the economic sub oil these
:44:18. > :44:22.days, without being sure that you would be able to join the European
:44:23. > :44:25.Union, and again, to tell the Scottish people, because this was
:44:26. > :44:31.one of the reasons you've lost last time - what will be the currency?
:44:32. > :44:35.You're right, we have to be rock-solid on the economy this time.
:44:36. > :44:42.We have to build a case. I'm glad Michael is having a good time. Some
:44:43. > :44:47.snorting down the line! I remember he said when we sent the Stone of
:44:48. > :44:57.destiny back to Scotland we would settle all this. He made a film for
:44:58. > :45:02.Newsnight. I'm trying to tell an amusing anecdote! You are right that
:45:03. > :45:06.the case on the economy has to be rock-solid, which is why Andrew
:45:07. > :45:11.Wilson is heading up a commission to answer these questions. Michael
:45:12. > :45:18.Forsyth, to some extent, as a staunch Unionist, have you not
:45:19. > :45:22.already lost the argument in that there is no question that Scotland
:45:23. > :45:26.and England are going their separate ways? They may stay within the
:45:27. > :45:29.United Kingdom, which is a different matter, but they are becoming very
:45:30. > :45:34.different countries, very different in many ways from the time when you
:45:35. > :45:41.were Secretary of State for Scotland. And even your own party,
:45:42. > :45:47.Ruth Davidson is styling herself as an independently minded, Scottish
:45:48. > :45:54.Conservative. Michael Forsyth, that was to you.
:45:55. > :45:58.Yes, of course, that is an inevitable consequence of
:45:59. > :46:05.devolution, which was one of the reasons why I opposed it back in
:46:06. > :46:09.1996. You actually said there was no demand for it, I remember. I
:46:10. > :46:14.interviewed you and you told me there was no demand for it from the
:46:15. > :46:18.Scottish people. And unlike you guys, we had a referendum and I
:46:19. > :46:23.accept the results of democratically held referenda. And so we have got a
:46:24. > :46:27.Scottish Carmont, which has got more powers. And that has changed the
:46:28. > :46:31.position. And of course, we're going to have to look at how that affects
:46:32. > :46:36.other parts of the United Kingdom. And people are looking at having a
:46:37. > :46:39.more federal kind of structure, which will maintain stability. But
:46:40. > :46:47.what worries me is that all this chatter about having independence in
:46:48. > :46:54.Scotland, when there is a deficit of some ?15 billion, is hugely damaging
:46:55. > :47:02.to Scotland's investment, in an area where business is not going to
:47:03. > :47:06.invest. We need to end it there. But I'm sure the argument is clearly not
:47:07. > :47:10.going away, so we will be able to come back to it in the weeks and
:47:11. > :47:23.months and probably years ahead. Your loving it! Carry on! When a
:47:24. > :47:27.political party is not exactly doing brilliantly nationally, it is not
:47:28. > :47:30.unusual for them to say, look how we are doing in the regional elections.
:47:31. > :47:34.The Liberal Democrats made the claim at their conference this week. So we
:47:35. > :47:48.thought we would see if there is any truth to it.
:47:49. > :48:18.It sounds like the football scores I'm doing here! To work out what all
:48:19. > :48:22.of that means, we're joined by the man who is lucky enough to follow
:48:23. > :48:26.this sort of thing for a living - and thank goodness somebody is, it's
:48:27. > :48:29.Tony Travers! Is it correct, then, to say that Liberal Democrats are
:48:30. > :48:34.doing well, albeit at local council by-election level? Well, they're not
:48:35. > :48:39.doing that well in the opinion polls, but they are, as you have
:48:40. > :48:43.just shown, doing surprisingly well, certainly surprisingly compared with
:48:44. > :48:47.the 2015 general election debacle, at the local level. Not in every
:48:48. > :48:52.seat but in a number of seats and particularly against Labour, it must
:48:53. > :48:57.be said, they are getting swings of 10%, 20%, even 30% from one party to
:48:58. > :49:00.the other. So I think they can realistically say, although these
:49:01. > :49:04.are straws in the wind, but there are some straws. So is that the
:49:05. > :49:08.basis for any sort of Liberal Democrat fightback? Well, it's the
:49:09. > :49:12.basis of the basis. If we remember the history of the Liberal Democrats
:49:13. > :49:17.- after the decline of the old Liberal Party and the period in the
:49:18. > :49:21.1950s and 1960s when they're used to be jokes about the Liberals' party
:49:22. > :49:26.conference, being able to fit in a phone box, then we moved onto the
:49:27. > :49:35.building of the Liberals, then the social and Liberal Democrats, and
:49:36. > :49:39.then the current party, as a new force in the middle of politics.
:49:40. > :49:43.They did that by building up local areas first, so-called pavement
:49:44. > :49:47.politics, getting new members, going out and knocking on doors, getting
:49:48. > :49:50.people interested, building up in local areas, winning councils and
:49:51. > :49:55.then hoping to win an MP in Parliament. It took 30 or 40 years,
:49:56. > :49:59.that was the trouble. As you say, it could be a long journey back for the
:50:00. > :50:04.Liberal Democrats locally, never mind nationally. But should Labour
:50:05. > :50:08.particularly be worried? Some of the examples which we have been talking
:50:09. > :50:12.about say it is Labour that they are taking some of these by-elections
:50:13. > :50:16.from, and in safe Labour areas? Indeed. The result is that you just
:50:17. > :50:21.put up for Labour are frankly abysmal for the main opposition
:50:22. > :50:25.party at this point of Parliament. The Conservatives in one way or
:50:26. > :50:30.another have now been in power for six years - their results are not
:50:31. > :50:33.that bad. The Lib Dems as we have said are making some progress,
:50:34. > :50:37.significant in some by-elections. But for the main opposition party in
:50:38. > :50:43.England to be losing seats net is pretty bad. Will that give the
:50:44. > :50:47.Liberal Democrats a rich seam than looking towards the Conservatives
:50:48. > :50:51.eats or areas that they lost in the south-west, for example, where Tim
:50:52. > :50:54.Farron seems to be looking, but there is no enthusiasm the
:50:55. > :50:58.pro-European stance of the Liberal Democrats, there? Don't know yet
:50:59. > :51:02.whether, when we get to the next general election, whenever that is,
:51:03. > :51:07.it could be next year, it could be 2020, it could be in between,
:51:08. > :51:10.whether the EU will play a major dominating role or not. It may just
:51:11. > :51:15.be back to the economy and the normal stuff with the EU as a bit
:51:16. > :51:19.player - we will have to wait and see. But I think going back to the
:51:20. > :51:22.progress the Lib Dems are making, we now know, because we live in
:51:23. > :51:28.multiparty politics, increasingly, all over Britain, that if the Lib
:51:29. > :51:30.Dems are doing better, even against Labour, it could harm the
:51:31. > :51:35.Conservatives in some parts of the country. And so as the Lib Dems
:51:36. > :51:38.start to pick up, it will be very interesting to see for example in
:51:39. > :51:43.the county elections next year and the local elections in Scotland and
:51:44. > :51:47.Wales, whether as it were, a beginning of a Lib Dem fightback
:51:48. > :51:50.damages only Labour or Labour and the Conservatives. It could do
:51:51. > :51:53.different things in different parts of the country. Whether that feeds
:51:54. > :51:58.to a general election, we would have to wait and see. Thank you very much
:51:59. > :52:02.for giving us that detail. I will not ask you about why the SNP lost
:52:03. > :52:11.that one local by-election. How did that happen? I was going to ask. The
:52:12. > :52:13.Lib Dems had to close the count because it was so empty, the hall.
:52:14. > :52:18.That's quite sad, isn't it? There was a mixture of approval
:52:19. > :52:20.and mockery this week when the Corbyn-supporting campaign
:52:21. > :52:22.group Momentum announced that it was setting up
:52:23. > :52:25.an activity group for children. Called Momentum Kids,
:52:26. > :52:27.it's intended to provide childcare for parents who want to get involved
:52:28. > :52:33.in political activism. Some thought this was an entirely
:52:34. > :52:36.sensible idea, but others weren't exactly keen on the idea that it
:52:37. > :52:39.might involve politicising children. Lib Dem leader Tim Farron dubbed
:52:40. > :52:41.the group Tiny Trots, and the idea may not have been
:52:42. > :52:46.helped by an advert for an event at this weekend's Labour conference
:52:47. > :52:48.featuring a "Teddy Bear Children were invited
:52:49. > :52:53.to bring their favourite toy, imagine what party it might join,
:52:54. > :52:56.think about what their teddy stands for, its values and how it might
:52:57. > :53:02.make positive changes. So, is this revolutionary
:53:03. > :53:04.brainwashing or an entirely harmless way to get more people
:53:05. > :53:06.involved in politics? Well, I'm joined now
:53:07. > :53:08.by the childrens' author Michael Rosen, and by Laura Perrins
:53:09. > :53:15.from the website Conservative Women. Welcome to both of you. Michael
:53:16. > :53:21.Rosen, is it ideological brainwashing? No, it's exactly what
:53:22. > :53:25.the Government recommends. If you look closely at the government's
:53:26. > :53:28.British values site, it says that schools should encourage children to
:53:29. > :53:32.demonstrate how democracy works. It's is those exact words -
:53:33. > :53:35.demonstrate how democracy works. That's what all schools should be
:53:36. > :53:39.doing. And what's wrong with that? Well, I think this is another great
:53:40. > :53:43.example of how the left, it's a rather sinister example of sort of
:53:44. > :53:49.grooming and for treating a very young child's mind onto a very
:53:50. > :53:53.leftist agenda. And we've always, there are plenty of examples of
:53:54. > :53:57.that. If it was just avoiding childcare, there's nothing wrong
:53:58. > :54:01.with that, but the idea that we are empowering children, very young
:54:02. > :54:05.toddlers and children to hold up placards, it's going little bit too
:54:06. > :54:11.far, I think. Didn't have the bit you read out say that they get to
:54:12. > :54:13.choose which party? Yes, if it was a right-wing grassroots organisation,
:54:14. > :54:17.perhaps like your own, what would be wrong with providing childcare and
:54:18. > :54:20.perhaps talking about politics? I think you have to be careful in
:54:21. > :54:27.terms of not trying to go behind the backs of parents and as I said,
:54:28. > :54:32.influencing the minds of very, very young children. Other parents not
:54:33. > :54:38.going along? Look, the parents will be politicking with the children
:54:39. > :54:43.separated in the crash. While they are out protesting. Michael Rosen,
:54:44. > :54:46.why is it necessary to have it with a political backdrop? If families
:54:47. > :54:50.want to talk politics at home or take their kids out on protests,
:54:51. > :54:58.they can do that, why does there have to be a political thing? There
:54:59. > :55:02.does not have to be at all. Why say, we will in some ways in Dockrell
:55:03. > :55:06.eight your children? There does not have to be at all. I belonged to
:55:07. > :55:11.left-wing groups when I was a child. I might have been indoctrinated!
:55:12. > :55:17.When you were very young children and I was no good at making
:55:18. > :55:22.placards! But the carrot is the free childcare. So it's quite clever, you
:55:23. > :55:24.could argue that it is never for a political party to offer free
:55:25. > :55:29.childcare and recruit new people, not people who are already
:55:30. > :55:32.indoctrinated like yourself! I feel very indoctrinated, thank you. But
:55:33. > :55:37.you could say, as people do, you cant things to children and show
:55:38. > :55:41.them things and demonstrate how democracy works, which is what the
:55:42. > :55:44.government recommends, and some children will walk away because
:55:45. > :55:49.they're bored stiff. Whatever they do it will have to be fun, because
:55:50. > :55:53.they are not at school, it is not punishment. It's always fun,
:55:54. > :55:57.indoctrination! What's the difference between sitting at the
:55:58. > :56:01.dinner papal with your family, putting the same newspapers in front
:56:02. > :56:05.of you all day basis, you're being indoctrinated from a fairly early
:56:06. > :56:09.age by your parents, so what would be wrong with extending that
:56:10. > :56:16.slightly? That's if you think parents and politicians are exactly
:56:17. > :56:21.the same ridge of course they're not. Let me finish, other people
:56:22. > :56:24.have a view. Of course political discussion around the dinner table
:56:25. > :56:29.should be encouraged, and I do it at home a lot. But that's very
:56:30. > :56:32.different to separating children, very young children, five and six,
:56:33. > :56:37.from their parents, hooding them in a room and setting about this, as I
:56:38. > :56:44.said, what is essentially indoctrination. It shows how extreme
:56:45. > :56:48.Momentum are. Would the SNP do it? I'm sitting here listening to this
:56:49. > :57:01.teddy business and it's a bit like Chairman Mao goads to Brideshead,
:57:02. > :57:05.isn't it? Jeremy Corbyn joins the Pooh Sticks society. I read the
:57:06. > :57:12.website, it wasn't exactly full with fun. What about children's books,
:57:13. > :57:22.lots of children's books have moral messaging in them? And I have one
:57:23. > :57:29.here, let's celebrate 25 years since the great Dr Zeuss died. What is the
:57:30. > :57:34.message? The message is that if you are poor and downtrodden, you should
:57:35. > :57:39.fight back. Have you read it? I've read a lot of yours, Michael Rosen,
:57:40. > :57:43.and I'm disturbed about this book being used to indoctrinate children.
:57:44. > :57:48.I read it to my kids all the time. All the family are underneath the
:57:49. > :57:53.duvet, and this is what the ordinary Labour Party members will be on
:57:54. > :57:57.Saturday. Are you reading some of this into everything here?! That's
:57:58. > :58:07.where middle Britain is, hiding under the covers! And sharing a bed
:58:08. > :58:11.as well, with an animal. I feel like this is a sort of Jackanory session.
:58:12. > :58:16.Andrew has fallen asleep. I was just reading the Harvard business review!
:58:17. > :58:18.Meanwhile, the answer to our quiz question...
:58:19. > :58:22.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:23. > :58:24.The question was which award-winning director has made a documentary
:58:25. > :58:39.I would love to see the Quentin Tarantino version, myself. You might
:58:40. > :58:42.see that this weekend! But I suspect it might be Ken Loach. And you're
:58:43. > :58:46.right! The One O'clock News is starting
:58:47. > :58:50.over on BBC One now. I'll be here on BBC One tonight
:58:51. > :58:53.after Question Time for the return of This Week, with Ed Vaizey,
:58:54. > :58:56.Lisa Nandy, Ken Livingstone, Miranda Green, Quentin Letts
:58:57. > :58:57.and Katie Price. If there is nothing new,
:58:58. > :59:07.then the Court of Appeal aren't going to change
:59:08. > :59:11.their decision.