22/09/2016 Daily Politics


22/09/2016

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

It's been one year since the Government passed a law

:00:40.:00:44.

to ensure "English votes for English laws" at Westminster.

:00:45.:00:46.

But will it make any difference when it comes to big issues

:00:47.:00:49.

There's anger at the treatment of British troops accused of war

:00:50.:00:56.

crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan - but are investigators coming under

:00:57.:00:59.

Following the Brexit vote, there were reports of a rush

:01:00.:01:04.

to a second referendum on Scottish independence.

:01:05.:01:08.

We'll be asking when and if it might happen.

:01:09.:01:12.

It's not the hard left, more the soft left ? yes,

:01:13.:01:15.

you can even bring your teddy to Momentum's new activity

:01:16.:01:17.

We'll be getting the view of children's author Michael Rosen.

:01:18.:01:31.

You could bring your teddy bear, couldn't you? You have more than I

:01:32.:01:35.

have! And with us for the whole

:01:36.:01:36.

of the programme today, He used to be a TV presenter,

:01:37.:01:40.

you know, although he was never as famous as me and JoCo,

:01:41.:01:44.

and that might be why he gave up this life of unstinting

:01:45.:01:47.

sacrifice and public service for all the glamour,

:01:48.:01:49.

fame and riches that I think I've got that

:01:50.:01:51.

the right way round. Welcome to the show,

:01:52.:01:55.

John. First today, the Government has said

:01:56.:01:58.

it is committed to introducing a new law to pardon gay men

:01:59.:02:05.

convicted under historical The legislation has been referred

:02:06.:02:07.

to as the Alan Turing Law, after the World War II code breaker

:02:08.:02:11.

who was pardoned in 2013, decades after he was convicted

:02:12.:02:14.

of gross indecency in 1952. Relatives of Mr Turing,

:02:15.:02:18.

whose work was critical in Allied efforts to read

:02:19.:02:20.

German naval messages, have led a high-profile

:02:21.:02:24.

campaign to secure pardons for the 49,000 other men convicted

:02:25.:02:27.

under those laws. The Government promised to act

:02:28.:02:33.

in last year's election manifesto, and our guest of the day has already

:02:34.:02:35.

introduced a private member's bill to get the Turing Law

:02:36.:02:38.

onto the statute books. Are the proposal from the Government

:02:39.:02:48.

actually going to do what you would like to see in terms of pardoning

:02:49.:02:54.

these 49,000 men? I don't quite know yet. I won the Private members draw,

:02:55.:03:00.

and I decided with Government support that I would introduce the

:03:01.:03:07.

Turing law. The idea is that pardons would be given to all the people

:03:08.:03:12.

found guilty of a crime which is no longer a crime. It was interesting

:03:13.:03:17.

in terms of the politics, because you and Andrew know, I am a new MP,

:03:18.:03:22.

and when I won this, I was invited in to see the Tory whips. You walk

:03:23.:03:27.

down this corridor with posters of great Tory victories on either side,

:03:28.:03:32.

and you are taken into see the deputy Chief Whip. She said, I am

:03:33.:03:36.

keen for this to reach the statute book, if you run with it, there will

:03:37.:03:40.

be no tricks or games from the conservative side. That's

:03:41.:03:47.

reassuring! I felt like a lack -- I was in a scene from House Of Cards.

:03:48.:03:54.

One of the other whips said, you are delightfully naive, Mr Nicolson.

:03:55.:04:01.

Will it get the statute books? I don't know any more than you do

:04:02.:04:04.

about what the Government has said. My bill will be introduced on the

:04:05.:04:10.

21st as a Private members Bill. It is great to forgive all the people

:04:11.:04:15.

who are now dead, but it is kind of sentimental. I am interested in the

:04:16.:04:19.

people who asked alive and who have lived with this for decades. Would

:04:20.:04:26.

that include those people too? Yes, so my bill says that there will be

:04:27.:04:31.

pardons for anyone found guilty, alive or dead, of any crime that is

:04:32.:04:37.

no longer on the statute book. Typically, for example, if you were

:04:38.:04:41.

21 and you had a boyfriend who was 20, you could have been found guilty

:04:42.:04:47.

of having underage sex. We think that is absurd now, but these guys

:04:48.:04:51.

have criminal convictions will stop they lived with that, and it was a

:04:52.:04:57.

great shame for their families. That's right. So I think it is good

:04:58.:05:01.

to pardon those who have died, for the sake of their families, but it

:05:02.:05:05.

is important to pardon those who are still alive. I wonder why it is

:05:06.:05:10.

taking so long. I remember the apology from Gordon Brown in 2009

:05:11.:05:15.

for what happened to Alan Turing and others, and yet here we are in 2016

:05:16.:05:20.

and it is not there get. I made a film in 1992 for the BBC called A

:05:21.:05:26.

Question Of Consent, and I took Edwina Currie to Amsterdam to look

:05:27.:05:31.

at a quality in action. It was the first time she became interested.

:05:32.:05:40.

She had James Anderson -- James Anderton, God's copper. I remember

:05:41.:05:49.

him. His job was to come on to gay men in and if they responded, they

:05:50.:05:56.

would be arrested. It would be called entrapment now. I said it was

:05:57.:06:01.

a prurience thing to want to do with police time. He defended it and said

:06:02.:06:06.

it was the right thing to do. People caught by him still have criminal

:06:07.:06:09.

convictions, and I want to give them some peace. Keypads in touch with

:06:10.:06:18.

what happens with the bill. -- keep us. It is time for our daily quiz.

:06:19.:06:29.

The question for today is about an hour-long documentary

:06:30.:06:31.

It was released online yesterday and it was made

:06:32.:06:34.

At the end of the show, John will give us the correct

:06:35.:06:48.

You hope! I think we know who it wasn't!

:06:49.:07:00.

"English votes for English laws" was the mechanism introduced

:07:01.:07:02.

by David Cameron's government to answer concerns about the ability

:07:03.:07:04.

of Scottish MPs to veto legislation that applied only

:07:05.:07:06.

It's known at Westminster by the menacing-sounding acronym

:07:07.:07:10.

Evel, and it's been in place for a year.

:07:11.:07:13.

Theresa May's government says it is going to review the

:07:14.:07:17.

So, what exactly is it, and is it working?

:07:18.:07:23.

Think back two years ago to the morning after the Scottish

:07:24.:07:26.

David Cameron stood on the steps of Downing Street and said

:07:27.:07:31.

new powers for Scotland should be balanced by "English

:07:32.:07:37.

It was an attempt to answer the so-called "West Lothian

:07:38.:07:41.

Question", which concerns Scottish MPs voting on matters that

:07:42.:07:43.

Under rules introduced last October, the Speaker, John Bercow,

:07:44.:07:48.

now decides if each new law applies only to England,

:07:49.:07:54.

A new stage in the law-making process was also created,

:07:55.:08:00.

the Legislative Grand Committee, where only MPs from

:08:01.:08:04.

The changes came into effect in January.

:08:05.:08:08.

So far, the Speaker has certified 11 bills under what is known as Evel,

:08:09.:08:13.

including on housing and policing and crime.

:08:14.:08:18.

And there have been 14 divisions on other pieces of legislation

:08:19.:08:21.

in which only English or English and Welsh

:08:22.:08:23.

But the controversy hasn't gone away.

:08:24.:08:29.

The Government was forced to shelve a vote last summer on relaxing

:08:30.:08:31.

the fox-hunting ban in England and Wales,

:08:32.:08:33.

after the Scottish National Party pledged to vote

:08:34.:08:35.

Now, there are suggestions the SNP could attempt to block

:08:36.:08:41.

Theresa May's plans for grammar schools in England.

:08:42.:08:45.

And the Government is now carrying out a review of the process.

:08:46.:08:49.

Leader of the Commons David Lidington told MPs the details

:08:50.:08:51.

Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Conservative MP

:08:52.:08:59.

Chris Philp, and of course, John Nicolson is still here.

:09:00.:09:06.

Chris, is it working? It is a good start in the sense that it means

:09:07.:09:13.

that for the first time English MPs have effectively a veto over

:09:14.:09:16.

measures that only affect England, which did not exist before, and it

:09:17.:09:24.

is a small step to stop the unfairness whereby Scottish MPs can

:09:25.:09:27.

vote on matters that affect only England but England's's MPs don't

:09:28.:09:33.

have the reciprocal right. When you say a beta, what do you mean? I

:09:34.:09:36.

thought the purpose was not a veto but -- veto. It is still subject to

:09:37.:09:49.

a vote by the whole house. Even if English members vote for something,

:09:50.:09:52.

it could still be voted down by the house as a health. It has not

:09:53.:09:56.

happened so far, but it is a power of veto, not to positively

:09:57.:10:02.

legislate. The ban on fox hunting, which was only for England and

:10:03.:10:06.

Wales, the Government withdrew that when the SNP said they would vote

:10:07.:10:11.

against it. Is that not a huge hole in the middle of what you're trying

:10:12.:10:16.

to do? In that situation, if the whole house could vote against it,

:10:17.:10:19.

it would not progress. Nicola Sturgeon said clearly in February 20

:10:20.:10:26.

oh that's right 2015, the SNP members would not be voting on

:10:27.:10:33.

England only matters. Come July 2015, just a few months later, she

:10:34.:10:38.

did a U-turn and decided that fox hunting in England was of such

:10:39.:10:41.

critical importance in Scotland that they would vote on it after all,

:10:42.:10:45.

which I thought was shamelessly opportunistic. What was the logic of

:10:46.:10:51.

the SNP voting on it? Did you worry that you would be inundated with

:10:52.:10:54.

leaking Fox's? PHONE RINGS

:10:55.:10:57.

I was inundated with Tory MPs asking us to vote on that, actually. A lot

:10:58.:11:06.

of people don't realise how many Conservative -- I was inundated with

:11:07.:11:13.

Tory MPs. People don't realise how many Conservative MPs were against

:11:14.:11:16.

it. She did change her mind, Nicola Sturgeon, which I think politicians

:11:17.:11:22.

are allowed to do. My view was, I am strongly against blood sports, and I

:11:23.:11:26.

thought we were right to vote on it. Although you mention Fox's crossing

:11:27.:11:33.

the border in jest, the hunt do not respect the border. There used to be

:11:34.:11:42.

a rule which was broadly adhered to by the Scottish Nationalists that

:11:43.:11:47.

you didn't vote on what you would regard as England only matters. That

:11:48.:11:51.

seems to have gone by the wayside. What is the rule now? Since I have

:11:52.:11:59.

been in the House of Commons, the issue as always been whether or not

:12:00.:12:05.

it has a knock-on financial effect, with the exception of the fox

:12:06.:12:09.

hunting one which you raise. I say to you why we said we would vote on

:12:10.:12:13.

that. You could not have carried the Tory backbenches on it anyway, in

:12:14.:12:19.

errant irony. A Barnett consequential would be the thing we

:12:20.:12:24.

would vote on. If it comes to the House, will you vote on Theresa

:12:25.:12:27.

May's plans on grammar schools for England? We don't know yet. It will

:12:28.:12:33.

depend on whether there are financial implications or not.

:12:34.:12:38.

Whether it is done on the existing education budget or a bit more is

:12:39.:12:41.

added to the budget to greatly schools, which of course you would

:12:42.:12:45.

get benefit from, even though you want be introducing grammar schools?

:12:46.:12:52.

Where would the negative consequential be? I will have to see

:12:53.:12:57.

the detail, which I don't yet know. You are kind of making it up as you

:12:58.:13:04.

go along. No, really. The financial implications are key. Can you point

:13:05.:13:08.

me to other examples where the SNP has intervened? It is not in our

:13:09.:13:16.

voting record in the last year. Sunday trading was something you

:13:17.:13:20.

were accused of turning into an opportunistic example of voting on

:13:21.:13:23.

something that would not affect you directly. It did not go beyond

:13:24.:13:28.

preliminary discussions. There was a vote on it, and the SNP voted

:13:29.:13:34.

against the Government's motion. As a result, Sunday trading laws in

:13:35.:13:37.

Croydon had been affected by your vote. I can't vote on Sunday trading

:13:38.:13:44.

in your constituency, so it is not fair. Barnett consequential are made

:13:45.:13:48.

up as a tiny figleaf to excuse basically troublemaking. I like it

:13:49.:13:55.

that if we don't help you get your legislation through we are

:13:56.:13:58.

troublemakers. You can't carry your backbenches. They are hostile. That

:13:59.:14:06.

is his problem. It is his problem. You are not there to help the Tory

:14:07.:14:10.

party, so why are you making the point? Because he is talking as if

:14:11.:14:15.

the Tory party is united on these issues and it is only a bunch of

:14:16.:14:18.

troublemakers in the air sent P Hu... There could be an issue. -- in

:14:19.:14:29.

the SNP who... Do you agree that if a vote on grammar schools comes

:14:30.:14:35.

before the Commons and it is clearly an English only matter, if the

:14:36.:14:38.

Scottish Nationalists are able to vote under the EVEL rules, there is

:14:39.:14:45.

a coach and horses through EVEL that makes it relevant? It was only ever

:14:46.:14:52.

a veto, but it would expose the weakness you are talking about. It

:14:53.:14:56.

would mean that English MPs alone cannot get something through. It

:14:57.:14:59.

would be good to strengthen the reform not to make it just a power

:15:00.:15:03.

of veto but a power of legislation as well, where the Scots did not

:15:04.:15:08.

have a veto. On fox hunting, I may well have voted against it, as you

:15:09.:15:12.

did or would have done. That is not the point. The point is that it is

:15:13.:15:18.

not fair for Scottish MPs to vote on matters that do not affect them at

:15:19.:15:20.

all. Can I just clarify - is it your

:15:21.:15:30.

desire to toughen this up? Well, I think there is a case for looking at

:15:31.:15:38.

that. If the SNP show... Governments are always tinkering. But I think if

:15:39.:15:43.

the SNP respect the spirit of what is intended and leave the grammar

:15:44.:15:47.

school legislation and similar things alone, then I think we could

:15:48.:15:51.

say the system is working. If on the other hand they abuse the current

:15:52.:15:55.

arrangements, and I would put it as strongly as abuse, then we need to

:15:56.:16:03.

look at it. I'm not sure what that means you should do! Because this is

:16:04.:16:07.

very complicated, this business. I think it was William Hague, of

:16:08.:16:12.

course, he's not there any more, but he put it together. If this is the

:16:13.:16:16.

way you want to go roster whether that's right is another matter - but

:16:17.:16:21.

if it was the way you wanted to go, what would be wrong with the Speaker

:16:22.:16:26.

designating a bill as England only, and you simply say, Scottish MPs

:16:27.:16:30.

cannot vote on that matter? That's effectively what I'm suggesting we

:16:31.:16:34.

would need to look at if they, as it were, misbehave and abuse the

:16:35.:16:40.

current system. The danger is that you start creating an English

:16:41.:16:45.

Parliament by the back door. You need to think carefully before you

:16:46.:16:49.

tinker with the constitution. Scotland has got a parliament, Wales

:16:50.:16:52.

has got a parliament. We're all being moved out of the crumbling

:16:53.:16:56.

House of Commons. It's the perfect time for you to set up an endless

:16:57.:16:59.

Parliament and resolve this issue. And place it in the north of

:17:00.:17:03.

England? Which would be even more fabulous. Some would say we have got

:17:04.:17:10.

enough Parliaments already. You're creating more lords, you will have

:17:11.:17:15.

more lords than MPs. Cut them. Whether Scotland ends up independent

:17:16.:17:20.

or not, the whole trend of British constitutional policy is for further

:17:21.:17:24.

devolution - devolution to Scotland, more powers for Wales and Northern

:17:25.:17:28.

Ireland and devolution to some extent, although more

:17:29.:17:31.

administrative, within England itself, in Manchester and all the

:17:32.:17:36.

rest of it. If that's the direction of travel, which it seems clear it

:17:37.:17:40.

has been since before Mr Blair, would it not make sense to look at

:17:41.:17:46.

an English Parliament? As I say, I think you mess around with the

:17:47.:17:51.

constitution with caution. These are complicated, long-standing

:17:52.:17:53.

traditions. We have enough politicians already, local councils,

:17:54.:17:56.

county councils, a huge number already. The reason the SNP are keen

:17:57.:18:01.

to see an English parliament is because they think it will pick the

:18:02.:18:05.

ties... I don't think you're giving me friendly advice, I think you're

:18:06.:18:08.

trying to unpick the ties. Anyway, we've run out of time! I'm just

:18:09.:18:17.

saying it's a good idea. We will come back to Evel, however you

:18:18.:18:20.

pronounce it. Evel sounds less sinister! And anyway, you don't

:18:21.:18:25.

spell evil like that! Theresa May has been under pressure! You might

:18:26.:18:33.

pronounce it like that! She has been to a grammar school, hasn't she? No,

:18:34.:18:38.

actually! Theresa May has been under

:18:39.:18:41.

pressure this week to scrap the Iraq Historic Allegations Team,

:18:42.:18:43.

which is handling some 1,500 allegations of murder,

:18:44.:18:46.

abuse and torture carried out by British soldiers

:18:47.:18:48.

during the conflict in Iraq. This morning's Daily Telegraph

:18:49.:18:50.

reports that a further 550 historic allegations of crimes committed

:18:51.:18:52.

by British troops in Afghanistan are also under investigation,

:18:53.:18:54.

leading to claims from senior political and military figures that

:18:55.:18:56.

many of the allegations The prime minister was asked

:18:57.:18:58.

about the claims on her trip to the United Nations this

:18:59.:19:02.

week, and she said... "We should all be proud

:19:03.:19:06.

of our armed forces." We can be proud of the disciplined

:19:07.:19:08.

way in which our armed Ihat, the Iraq Historic Allegations

:19:09.:19:27.

Team, will be able to focus on cases where there may be

:19:28.:19:31.

questions of allegations." Well, we're joined

:19:32.:19:34.

now by Tim Collins. He led the 1st Batallion Irish

:19:35.:19:37.

Regiment in Iraq, and he has said that many of the allegations are

:19:38.:19:43.

being made by "parasitic lawyers". Welcome to the programme - how do

:19:44.:19:53.

you distinguish between a legitimate and vexatious claim? Well, I think

:19:54.:19:56.

that throughout the conflict, not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan as

:19:57.:20:01.

well, and remember we also have large caseload of investigations

:20:02.:20:04.

from Northern Ireland, is Russian forces operations there. And I think

:20:05.:20:09.

certainly looking at Iraq, the military police on the ground have

:20:10.:20:15.

already investigated these things. But if someone saw an opportunity to

:20:16.:20:20.

make a fast buck, and that was facilitated by government, and now

:20:21.:20:23.

it has become a runaway train. When you look at the depth and the

:20:24.:20:26.

complicity of the lies that we are told in these enquiries, you have to

:20:27.:20:31.

say, enough. At it is difficult to distinguish between the two - you

:20:32.:20:37.

don't I presume want to shop down the jet claims of abuse and torture

:20:38.:20:41.

as per international treaties wanted it is a bit like, do you keep

:20:42.:20:44.

looking at these things until you get the answer you want, like the

:20:45.:20:48.

referendum? You have described it as an industry. It is an industry. And

:20:49.:20:54.

in terms of the numbers cases reported today, 550 - is that what

:20:55.:20:58.

makes it an industry as well as the money that's involved? Well, I think

:20:59.:21:04.

again, it's a runaway train. There is 550 cases, 157 complaints, ?7.5

:21:05.:21:10.

million has been put into its. There's 124 MPs investigating it. So

:21:11.:21:15.

far they have dismissed 16 cases and there has not been a single case of

:21:16.:21:19.

wrongdoing found. But would it be right not to look at them at all? If

:21:20.:21:24.

you're saying this is an industry... They're look that at a certain

:21:25.:21:29.

level. The bottom line is, and I think it reaches a wider spectrum,

:21:30.:21:36.

that this industry depends on applying the rule which applies on

:21:37.:21:38.

the street here in London to the battlefield elsewhere. If that's

:21:39.:21:43.

what we want, then we should not be deploying troops. And furthermore, I

:21:44.:21:47.

think it is now got to a point where we are about to see the worm

:21:48.:21:51.

turning. Think there is going to be military people bringing cases

:21:52.:21:54.

against the Government for harassment, and then it is going to

:21:55.:21:58.

turn into an awful dogfight. The problem is, the leadership of the

:21:59.:22:02.

military have so lost confidence of the rank and file, it might even be

:22:03.:22:06.

time that we need a union in the military to start dealing with this,

:22:07.:22:09.

because that's what would happen in industry. If we're going to apply

:22:10.:22:13.

industry standards, then we've got to apply unions. If you don't want,

:22:14.:22:17.

as you say, the laws of the street, what levels of law being applied to

:22:18.:22:21.

troops should be there? Well, what we've done for the last couple of

:22:22.:22:25.

hundred years, we have military law. It's what we did in the Second World

:22:26.:22:29.

War, it's what we did in Korea. We've moved the goalposts and

:22:30.:22:33.

discovered why we shouldn't have moved the goalposts - it's time to

:22:34.:22:37.

move them back. What would your response be? The law society has

:22:38.:22:39.

responded, saying that everybody needs protection. And some of these

:22:40.:22:44.

cases are being put forward by the most vulnerable. And there have been

:22:45.:22:49.

cases of alleged torture and abuse by British troops which need to be

:22:50.:22:53.

investigated, and they've got a point? They do have a point, because

:22:54.:22:58.

Tim also has a point - we have a duty of care to these soldiers,

:22:59.:23:01.

these very young soldiers. Many of them are going from the UK, they

:23:02.:23:06.

have never been abroad, and suddenly they are expected to switch roles,

:23:07.:23:10.

aren't they, from being warriors to be in police, in very different

:23:11.:23:14.

circumstances? Tim knows better than anybody else how difficult it is to

:23:15.:23:18.

tell these young soldiers that although they've been fighting an

:23:19.:23:25.

enemy, under all circumstances they've got to treat the enemy with

:23:26.:23:30.

respect. I think it's very important for us to remain there that we have

:23:31.:23:34.

a duty of care to these soldiers. Of course we must absolutely respect

:23:35.:23:39.

the law. Equally, we must run with a terrible strain the soldiers have

:23:40.:23:43.

been under. But that is the onus on the military, to train the armed

:23:44.:23:47.

forces so that they understand that, as well as to protect them from any

:23:48.:23:51.

miscarriage of justice which might be thrown their way? There not being

:23:52.:23:54.

protected from miscarriage of justice. Is that because the

:23:55.:23:58.

military isn't doing it? The military commanders are so

:23:59.:24:00.

frightened of the lawyers. Of course the lawyers are the ones who will

:24:01.:24:04.

gain from this. Of course the law society want that in their pocket.

:24:05.:24:08.

The bottom line is, it's easier for a commander now to take a risk with

:24:09.:24:15.

a soldier called life, and lose a soldier dead, that can be explained.

:24:16.:24:18.

But if you take the opportunity to protect your men and you do the

:24:19.:24:20.

wrong thing, you will go to court. That can't be right. The balance has

:24:21.:24:25.

tipped, according to Tim Collins, so how do you redress it? There have

:24:26.:24:30.

been much publicised cases people dying in military custody, one of

:24:31.:24:34.

them many years ago, back in 2003, and a public inquiry said it was an

:24:35.:24:38.

episode of serious, gratuitous violence. It's important to

:24:39.:24:43.

remember, it's not the law versus the army. I've interviewed many,

:24:44.:24:46.

many soldiers, and decent, honourable soldiers are not

:24:47.:24:50.

supporting the bad apples. Where there have been cases of abuse or

:24:51.:24:54.

illegality, soldiers want these to be rooted out. Soldiers want these

:24:55.:24:58.

people to be prosecuted. Or accusations of cover-ups? Soldiers

:24:59.:25:03.

do not want there to be a cover-up. When they behave honourably, they

:25:04.:25:06.

want to be defended by their commander, and where there are bad

:25:07.:25:09.

apples, they want them to be uncovered. You make a very valid

:25:10.:25:14.

point. These people are not turning up at a police station in Iraq or

:25:15.:25:17.

Afghanistan to complain. These allegations are all being made by

:25:18.:25:21.

someone from within the military, to say they saw something, and that's

:25:22.:25:24.

when the vultures come in to start picking at the corpse. I take your

:25:25.:25:29.

point that people in the military are more frightened of the lawyers

:25:30.:25:35.

than they would be, perhaps. Whistle-blowers, reporting these

:25:36.:25:40.

things. But the point is, the chap we were talking about was a

:25:41.:25:44.

notorious bomb maker. He is looking for compensation from our courts, a

:25:45.:25:47.

reward for killing soldiers. Are we going to give him that? Yes, we

:25:48.:25:52.

probably are. In terms of the amount of money that's been spent, six will

:25:53.:25:55.

say, it's costing millions in the context of a war which is costing

:25:56.:25:59.

billions is that not a small price to pay to make sure human rights and

:26:00.:26:04.

international law is upheld. In my house, I tell my children to turn

:26:05.:26:07.

the lights off to stop wasting money. I don't care if it's one like

:26:08.:26:12.

or every light in the house. You don't leave the tap running, this is

:26:13.:26:15.

public money, it can't be wasted. What do you think should happen,

:26:16.:26:19.

then? How do you stop this industry spreading? It's a very difficult

:26:20.:26:25.

question. We've seen a huge rise in ambulance chasers in the last 25 in

:26:26.:26:29.

30 years, it was not something that I remember from years before. I

:26:30.:26:34.

think Tim is fundamentally right. I think soldiers have got to feel with

:26:35.:26:37.

certainty that when they go to their commanding officer, they will be

:26:38.:26:42.

taken seriously. If they whistle-blower, they will be

:26:43.:26:44.

defended, it will not be considered dishonourable. The military has got

:26:45.:26:49.

to protect its own, and the legal system also has got to protect

:26:50.:26:55.

soldiers and also, where necessary, victims. Thank you.

:26:56.:26:57.

Now, leaked documents published today show that

:26:58.:27:01.

new Home Secretary Amber Rudd used to be a director of two offshore

:27:02.:27:04.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mrs Rudd, but her critics say

:27:05.:27:09.

the revelations are embarrassing for the Government, which has

:27:10.:27:11.

prioritised cracking down on tax havens.

:27:12.:27:16.

A spokesperson for the home secretary told the Guardian that it

:27:17.:27:21.

is a matter of public record that Amber had a career in this area

:27:22.:27:23.

before joining politics. Joining us now is Molly Scott Cato

:27:24.:27:25.

MEP for South-West England, and a member of the European

:27:26.:27:28.

Parliament's inquiry committee Molly Scott Cato, what has Amber

:27:29.:27:44.

Rudd Dunne? We have heard that she was a director of two of these

:27:45.:27:48.

companies, notorious tax havens. So what we're calling for a day is for

:27:49.:27:52.

Amber Rudd to come and make a much fuller statement, probably a

:27:53.:27:55.

statement which include details of what the directorships was about and

:27:56.:27:59.

how much money she made from them. The suspicion is, when people set up

:28:00.:28:02.

a company in the Bahamas, they're not doing it because... They are

:28:03.:28:06.

doing it because it is at the heart of a nexus of tax avoidance and it

:28:07.:28:10.

is totally inappropriate for a government minister to be involved

:28:11.:28:13.

in something like that. Do you have evidence that Amber Road was

:28:14.:28:17.

involved in tax avoidance or tax evasion through these directorships?

:28:18.:28:19.

These are the questions that need to be answered. Do you have evidence?

:28:20.:28:24.

We have evidence that she was eye rector of two asset management

:28:25.:28:27.

companies. That in itself is not illegal but it does not smell right,

:28:28.:28:31.

when Theresa May came into power, she said you wanted to work for the

:28:32.:28:35.

many, not the few. She was going to clean up capitalism and so on. I

:28:36.:28:38.

think she needs to be asking Amber Rudd questions and we need more

:28:39.:28:42.

information in the public domain. You have said that it is difficult

:28:43.:28:46.

to see how the Prime Minister can continue to have confidence in Amber

:28:47.:28:49.

Rudd, but you can give us no examples this morning of any

:28:50.:28:52.

illegality or any dodgy tax work by Amber Rudd, so why? What evidence do

:28:53.:29:00.

you have? Is this just an attempt to get some publicity? What evidence to

:29:01.:29:05.

you have that she has done anything wrong? An awful lot of this is about

:29:06.:29:10.

appearance, and the appearance here is all wrong. The companies were

:29:11.:29:13.

based in the Bahamas. There's reasons for that... It was 1998!

:29:14.:29:19.

That's right. It is historic evidence. And the law on tax

:29:20.:29:24.

avoidance was totally different from what it is now! It comes together to

:29:25.:29:29.

bring a picture of a government which is not living up to the

:29:30.:29:32.

standards it set itself. If Amber Rudd can come forward and defend

:29:33.:29:36.

these allegations, let her do that. This government says it is focused

:29:37.:29:41.

on tax transparency, and ending tax avoidance, but we have someone who

:29:42.:29:46.

came forward to doom defend David Cameron where his name cropped up in

:29:47.:29:50.

these allegations, but she did not say anything about herself at that

:29:51.:29:54.

time. So because somebody was a director of a company for two years

:29:55.:29:58.

over 16 years ago, that makes them unfit to be a government minister,

:29:59.:30:02.

even though you can bring no sense of illegality or wrongdoing to this

:30:03.:30:07.

argument? You may think that's fine, Theresa May may think it's fine, but

:30:08.:30:11.

I can tell you, the people I represent are scandalised that this

:30:12.:30:15.

sort of behaviour goes on, whether it's rich companies all rich

:30:16.:30:21.

individuals avoiding tax. But do you have any evidence that she actually

:30:22.:30:24.

earned any money from these two offshore funds for two years?

:30:25.:30:31.

That is what protects people, secrecy. She was encouraging

:30:32.:30:39.

transparency. Should you not have encouraged her to come forward

:30:40.:30:41.

before you deigned to call for the Prime Minister to get rid of her?

:30:42.:30:45.

The fact she has been the director of two companies in the Bahamas is

:30:46.:30:50.

bad enough, because it has the wrong type of tone. That this qualifies

:30:51.:30:55.

even though it was 16 years ago and there was no issue of illegality? It

:30:56.:31:01.

is a question for Theresa May to answer. I am asking you because you

:31:02.:31:07.

brought it up. It is important to be critical of Government and allow

:31:08.:31:10.

them to account their past behaviour as well as their present behaviour.

:31:11.:31:14.

I am not impressed by a senior member of the Government profiting

:31:15.:31:20.

from activity in a tax haven. So if we find that any Green party member

:31:21.:31:25.

has had an ass -- an historic connection with offshore tax havens,

:31:26.:31:35.

going back 15, 20 years, they would have to leave the Government or the

:31:36.:31:43.

party? Surely the attitude is the same. If it is wrong to do it if

:31:44.:31:47.

you're a Government minister, it must be wrong if you are Ray Green

:31:48.:31:51.

activist campaigning against tax avoidance. Of course it is wrong.

:31:52.:31:59.

Amber Rudd is supposed to be upholding high standards of this

:32:00.:32:02.

new, clean form of capitalism that works for us all, and her past

:32:03.:32:06.

business record does not live up to it. She has called for reforms on

:32:07.:32:10.

the offshore system now. She says it is important and as you will know,

:32:11.:32:16.

since 2000, there have been huge changes to make tax havens more

:32:17.:32:21.

transparent. There are OECD agreements, EU agreements. You are

:32:22.:32:25.

on the committee, so you must know. She herself has said it is time that

:32:26.:32:31.

we put 25 new measures in place by 2021 to get transparency on tax

:32:32.:32:36.

matters. What is your problem? The words sound good, but current and

:32:37.:32:41.

past actions don't live up to them. Can you let me get to the end of

:32:42.:32:50.

one... The Government has taken the lead on OECD recommendations. That

:32:51.:32:55.

is action. The recommendations don't go far enough. We need full

:32:56.:32:58.

information to come out, and we still have tax havens where the

:32:59.:33:03.

information is being concealed, and there are still close relationships

:33:04.:33:07.

between those havens and the City of London. That is what does not smell

:33:08.:33:11.

right from a Government that says it will set itself higher standards. If

:33:12.:33:15.

you discover that a Green party donor has had legitimate and legal

:33:16.:33:22.

directorship of an offshore company an attack saving, will you hand the

:33:23.:33:27.

money back? If it were down to me, I would. It is not legitimate to

:33:28.:33:34.

accept money who it -- money from people who have been involved in tax

:33:35.:33:39.

havens. Even if it were 20 years ago? We all, in public life, need to

:33:40.:33:48.

live up to the higher standards and we need to expect the highest

:33:49.:33:52.

standards from donors. This is the Home Secretary, someone who sets the

:33:53.:33:57.

tone. She has nothing to do with tax policy. She is one of the key

:33:58.:34:01.

ministers in Government. I do think it is good enough. Let's hear from

:34:02.:34:05.

her and let the public decide. You have already made up your mind. The

:34:06.:34:11.

public are not happy with people with that level of responsibility

:34:12.:34:16.

acting in any way that smacks of tax avoidance. There is a great deal of

:34:17.:34:20.

unhappiness out there on this issue. Thank you for joining us.

:34:21.:34:23.

Now, there's still plenty of speculation in Scotland

:34:24.:34:25.

if and when Nicola Sturgeon might call for a second

:34:26.:34:28.

Immediately after the Brexit vote, the First Minister said a second

:34:29.:34:31.

referendum was "highly likely", but with the polls not showing

:34:32.:34:34.

clear public support, in recent days it's been suggested

:34:35.:34:36.

that the SNP has put another vote on the back burner.

:34:37.:34:38.

Well, we're joined now by our Scotland Editor, Sarah Smith.

:34:39.:34:41.

Nice to see you again. What do the polls say at the moment on Scottish

:34:42.:34:57.

independence? If Nicola Sturgeon was relying on a Brexit bounce to in

:34:58.:35:04.

increase support for independence, she will be disappointed. There was

:35:05.:35:10.

a poll showing support independence over 50% just after the Brexit vote.

:35:11.:35:15.

The most recent poll was published on Sunday, to coincide with the

:35:16.:35:19.

second anniversary of the independence referendum, and it

:35:20.:35:23.

showed support at 48% of top it is not easy for the First Minister to

:35:24.:35:25.

make a decision because she has previously said she would not want

:35:26.:35:30.

to call another referendum unless there was sustained support at

:35:31.:35:33.

around the 60% mark. We know that polls are not always entirely

:35:34.:35:37.

accurate, but if it is polling below 50%, it is hard to see how she could

:35:38.:35:43.

call another vote. What is the policy at the moment? Is it to have

:35:44.:35:47.

another referendum as soon as possible, or to wait until the

:35:48.:35:52.

Brexit deal is done, and we all then know the terms of the divorce, and

:35:53.:35:59.

then have the referendum? Is there any clarity on the timetable for the

:36:00.:36:03.

principles that could govern a second referendum? There is a debate

:36:04.:36:07.

going on within the party about that. Senior SNP figures are keen to

:36:08.:36:12.

go for a vote soon, some of them. They are talking about 2018. The

:36:13.:36:16.

reasoning would be that if Scotland votes were independence before the

:36:17.:36:22.

UK exits the EU, Benny Howell that maybe Scotland could be a continuing

:36:23.:36:25.

member and never leave the EU. There are others who think that would be

:36:26.:36:33.

too soon. -- then they hope that maybe Scotland. There are people who

:36:34.:36:39.

think that maybe if the Conservatives were to win another

:36:40.:36:44.

general election in 2020, and the Tories still have only one MP in

:36:45.:36:48.

Scotland at the moment, that that would look like more of a democratic

:36:49.:36:56.

deficit and would show that the rest of the UK and Scotland are going in

:36:57.:37:00.

different political directions, and that might be a better Rodman for

:37:01.:37:05.

independence. Sarah Smith, in a sunny and beautiful looking Glass

:37:06.:37:11.

School. It was always thus! You and I know that is not true!

:37:12.:37:14.

We are now joined by former Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth,

:37:15.:37:17.

and the SNP's John Nicolson is still here.

:37:18.:37:19.

John Nicolson, what is your view? When do you think there should be,

:37:20.:37:25.

if you think there should be a second referendum? I believe in

:37:26.:37:33.

independence so I think there should be. Sarah's analysis is spot on.

:37:34.:37:37.

There are a lot of new members who have joined the party, over 100,000

:37:38.:37:41.

members, and a lot of these people have come across from the Labour

:37:42.:37:46.

Party in particular and they are desperate to see a referendum as

:37:47.:37:50.

soon as possible. When would you like to see it? We are in a bit of a

:37:51.:37:55.

phoney war at the moment, because we voted for Brexit but we don't know

:37:56.:37:59.

the deal that is on the table. Sarah is right - the polls still show less

:38:00.:38:04.

than 50% of people supporting independence. So you don't want one

:38:05.:38:09.

now? You don't want to hold a referendum until you think you're

:38:10.:38:14.

going to win it. People. To focus on what Brexit actually means, and I

:38:15.:38:17.

don't think the Prime Minister can keep up this line she uses, which

:38:18.:38:22.

is, we are not prepared to give a running commentary on the

:38:23.:38:25.

negotiations. People south and north of the border are going to want to

:38:26.:38:29.

know what the deal is. I understand that, but I know that your party has

:38:30.:38:35.

several views on this. I'm trying to determine yours. OK. Should you have

:38:36.:38:41.

a referendum during the Brexit negotiations, or should you wait

:38:42.:38:44.

until you know the shape of the deal and then call a referendum? On

:38:45.:38:49.

balance, I think we should know the shape of the deal so that people

:38:50.:38:52.

know of what they are broadly conform. -- voting for. That would

:38:53.:39:01.

be the fairest thing, so that the question they are being asked is put

:39:02.:39:05.

with the most information possible on the table. So not before another

:39:06.:39:12.

two years at least? That is my view. Michael Forsyth, is it not

:39:13.:39:22.

inevitable, since Scotland voted to remain in the EU, that this Scottish

:39:23.:39:26.

independence business is back on the agenda? I don't think so at all. If

:39:27.:39:31.

the SNP want to hold another referendum, they should fight an

:39:32.:39:34.

election with a manifesto that makes that clear. Their manifesto actually

:39:35.:39:38.

said, we believe that the Scottish parliament should have the right to

:39:39.:39:41.

hold another referendum if it's clear that more than half the people

:39:42.:39:46.

in Scotland want independence. We have Alex Salmond saying something

:39:47.:39:49.

different from Nicola Sturgeon. And the most striking thing is the

:39:50.:39:55.

contempt that the SNP show for the clear decision, 55% of the Scottish

:39:56.:40:01.

people voted to remain part of the UK. In their manifesto, they said,

:40:02.:40:07.

in 2014, we held a referendum that got people across the country

:40:08.:40:10.

talking about what kind of nation we want to be and how we want to be

:40:11.:40:15.

governed. No, we didn't. We took a clear decision which Alex Salmond

:40:16.:40:20.

holders was a once in a generation chance. They are damaging Scotland,

:40:21.:40:24.

creating uncertainty and reinforcing the view that you can't believe

:40:25.:40:30.

anything politicians tell you. What politicians, Unionist politicians,

:40:31.:40:34.

told the Scottish people was that the only sure way of remaining

:40:35.:40:39.

inside the EU, which was the settled will of Scotland, was to vote for

:40:40.:40:46.

the union. An independent Scotland could not be guaranteed to be inside

:40:47.:40:51.

the EU, and now that sure way has turned out to be a sure way to the

:40:52.:40:58.

door. Because of a decision made by the British people. I have to say,

:40:59.:41:03.

the only argument I can think of in favour of independence that would

:41:04.:41:06.

have been the vote for it was as a way of getting out of the EU. As

:41:07.:41:13.

with many of your views, that is a minority view in Scotland. Indeed,

:41:14.:41:21.

it is. When you say it is a minority view in Scotland, it is a properly

:41:22.:41:24.

held view among Scottish Nationalist. If you look at Dundee,

:41:25.:41:29.

the most nationalist town in Scotland, 40% of the people there

:41:30.:41:32.

voted to leave the EU, because there are a lot of people who believe that

:41:33.:41:36.

Scotland should have more control of their own affairs and realise that

:41:37.:41:41.

staying part of the EU is a contradiction. John Nicolson, if you

:41:42.:41:47.

were to have this referendum, so the Brexit deal is done, and Britain is

:41:48.:41:51.

on the way out, and we know the terms that we are out on, I've guess

:41:52.:42:00.

we're talking about 2019 -- I guess. Could you go to the Scottish people

:42:01.:42:04.

and guarantee that if Scotland voted to leave the UK, it would

:42:05.:42:09.

automatically be a member of the EU? We don't know that yet.

:42:10.:42:16.

Certainly,... You could end up being out of both? Michael Forsyth is

:42:17.:42:22.

laughing. It takes some hot spot for a Tory politician -- it takes some

:42:23.:42:31.

nerve for a Tory politician to laugh when they promised it was how to

:42:32.:42:38.

stay in the EU. But you could be -- you could be out of the UK and out

:42:39.:42:46.

of the EU. People know that the UK as a whole is leaving. There is a

:42:47.:42:51.

lot to be said for rewarding Scotland for being good Europeans

:42:52.:42:56.

and for allowing Scotland to continue to be Europeans. The

:42:57.:43:03.

European Union is then -- is in the business of expanding, as Euro

:43:04.:43:09.

sceptics point out. And the expansion for new members includes

:43:10.:43:13.

taking the euro, and it includes becoming part of the Schengen area.

:43:14.:43:18.

In an independent Scotland, if it were to be part of Schengen, there

:43:19.:43:22.

would have to be border controls at Carlisle and Berwick. It is

:43:23.:43:25.

uncharted territory. INAUDIBLE

:43:26.:43:32.

It is. In Northern Ireland, -- it is. In Northern Ireland, they are

:43:33.:43:36.

having a debate about open borders. The Government has made it clear to

:43:37.:43:39.

Irish politicians that there would not be a hard border. Because we're

:43:40.:43:46.

not a member of Schengen, but you might have to accept Schengen

:43:47.:43:49.

membership in order to be part of the EU. You rightly say that a lot

:43:50.:44:02.

of these issues are upper negotiation. It is early days. It

:44:03.:44:08.

would be a huge gamble, would it not, for Scotland to vote to leave

:44:09.:44:13.

the United Kingdom, particularly given the economic sub oil these

:44:14.:44:17.

days, without being sure that you would be able to join the European

:44:18.:44:22.

Union, and again, to tell the Scottish people, because this was

:44:23.:44:25.

one of the reasons you've lost last time - what will be the currency?

:44:26.:44:31.

You're right, we have to be rock-solid on the economy this time.

:44:32.:44:35.

We have to build a case. I'm glad Michael is having a good time. Some

:44:36.:44:42.

snorting down the line! I remember he said when we sent the Stone of

:44:43.:44:47.

destiny back to Scotland we would settle all this. He made a film for

:44:48.:44:57.

Newsnight. I'm trying to tell an amusing anecdote! You are right that

:44:58.:45:02.

the case on the economy has to be rock-solid, which is why Andrew

:45:03.:45:06.

Wilson is heading up a commission to answer these questions. Michael

:45:07.:45:11.

Forsyth, to some extent, as a staunch Unionist, have you not

:45:12.:45:18.

already lost the argument in that there is no question that Scotland

:45:19.:45:22.

and England are going their separate ways? They may stay within the

:45:23.:45:26.

United Kingdom, which is a different matter, but they are becoming very

:45:27.:45:29.

different countries, very different in many ways from the time when you

:45:30.:45:34.

were Secretary of State for Scotland. And even your own party,

:45:35.:45:41.

Ruth Davidson is styling herself as an independently minded, Scottish

:45:42.:45:47.

Conservative. Michael Forsyth, that was to you.

:45:48.:45:54.

Yes, of course, that is an inevitable consequence of

:45:55.:45:58.

devolution, which was one of the reasons why I opposed it back in

:45:59.:46:05.

1996. You actually said there was no demand for it, I remember. I

:46:06.:46:09.

interviewed you and you told me there was no demand for it from the

:46:10.:46:14.

Scottish people. And unlike you guys, we had a referendum and I

:46:15.:46:18.

accept the results of democratically held referenda. And so we have got a

:46:19.:46:23.

Scottish Carmont, which has got more powers. And that has changed the

:46:24.:46:27.

position. And of course, we're going to have to look at how that affects

:46:28.:46:31.

other parts of the United Kingdom. And people are looking at having a

:46:32.:46:36.

more federal kind of structure, which will maintain stability. But

:46:37.:46:39.

what worries me is that all this chatter about having independence in

:46:40.:46:47.

Scotland, when there is a deficit of some ?15 billion, is hugely damaging

:46:48.:46:54.

to Scotland's investment, in an area where business is not going to

:46:55.:47:02.

invest. We need to end it there. But I'm sure the argument is clearly not

:47:03.:47:06.

going away, so we will be able to come back to it in the weeks and

:47:07.:47:10.

months and probably years ahead. Your loving it! Carry on! When a

:47:11.:47:23.

political party is not exactly doing brilliantly nationally, it is not

:47:24.:47:27.

unusual for them to say, look how we are doing in the regional elections.

:47:28.:47:30.

The Liberal Democrats made the claim at their conference this week. So we

:47:31.:47:34.

thought we would see if there is any truth to it.

:47:35.:47:48.

It sounds like the football scores I'm doing here! To work out what all

:47:49.:48:18.

of that means, we're joined by the man who is lucky enough to follow

:48:19.:48:22.

this sort of thing for a living - and thank goodness somebody is, it's

:48:23.:48:26.

Tony Travers! Is it correct, then, to say that Liberal Democrats are

:48:27.:48:29.

doing well, albeit at local council by-election level? Well, they're not

:48:30.:48:34.

doing that well in the opinion polls, but they are, as you have

:48:35.:48:39.

just shown, doing surprisingly well, certainly surprisingly compared with

:48:40.:48:43.

the 2015 general election debacle, at the local level. Not in every

:48:44.:48:47.

seat but in a number of seats and particularly against Labour, it must

:48:48.:48:52.

be said, they are getting swings of 10%, 20%, even 30% from one party to

:48:53.:48:57.

the other. So I think they can realistically say, although these

:48:58.:49:00.

are straws in the wind, but there are some straws. So is that the

:49:01.:49:04.

basis for any sort of Liberal Democrat fightback? Well, it's the

:49:05.:49:08.

basis of the basis. If we remember the history of the Liberal Democrats

:49:09.:49:12.

- after the decline of the old Liberal Party and the period in the

:49:13.:49:17.

1950s and 1960s when they're used to be jokes about the Liberals' party

:49:18.:49:21.

conference, being able to fit in a phone box, then we moved onto the

:49:22.:49:26.

building of the Liberals, then the social and Liberal Democrats, and

:49:27.:49:35.

then the current party, as a new force in the middle of politics.

:49:36.:49:39.

They did that by building up local areas first, so-called pavement

:49:40.:49:43.

politics, getting new members, going out and knocking on doors, getting

:49:44.:49:47.

people interested, building up in local areas, winning councils and

:49:48.:49:50.

then hoping to win an MP in Parliament. It took 30 or 40 years,

:49:51.:49:55.

that was the trouble. As you say, it could be a long journey back for the

:49:56.:49:59.

Liberal Democrats locally, never mind nationally. But should Labour

:50:00.:50:04.

particularly be worried? Some of the examples which we have been talking

:50:05.:50:08.

about say it is Labour that they are taking some of these by-elections

:50:09.:50:12.

from, and in safe Labour areas? Indeed. The result is that you just

:50:13.:50:16.

put up for Labour are frankly abysmal for the main opposition

:50:17.:50:21.

party at this point of Parliament. The Conservatives in one way or

:50:22.:50:25.

another have now been in power for six years - their results are not

:50:26.:50:30.

that bad. The Lib Dems as we have said are making some progress,

:50:31.:50:33.

significant in some by-elections. But for the main opposition party in

:50:34.:50:37.

England to be losing seats net is pretty bad. Will that give the

:50:38.:50:43.

Liberal Democrats a rich seam than looking towards the Conservatives

:50:44.:50:47.

eats or areas that they lost in the south-west, for example, where Tim

:50:48.:50:51.

Farron seems to be looking, but there is no enthusiasm the

:50:52.:50:54.

pro-European stance of the Liberal Democrats, there? Don't know yet

:50:55.:50:58.

whether, when we get to the next general election, whenever that is,

:50:59.:51:02.

it could be next year, it could be 2020, it could be in between,

:51:03.:51:07.

whether the EU will play a major dominating role or not. It may just

:51:08.:51:10.

be back to the economy and the normal stuff with the EU as a bit

:51:11.:51:15.

player - we will have to wait and see. But I think going back to the

:51:16.:51:19.

progress the Lib Dems are making, we now know, because we live in

:51:20.:51:22.

multiparty politics, increasingly, all over Britain, that if the Lib

:51:23.:51:28.

Dems are doing better, even against Labour, it could harm the

:51:29.:51:30.

Conservatives in some parts of the country. And so as the Lib Dems

:51:31.:51:35.

start to pick up, it will be very interesting to see for example in

:51:36.:51:38.

the county elections next year and the local elections in Scotland and

:51:39.:51:43.

Wales, whether as it were, a beginning of a Lib Dem fightback

:51:44.:51:47.

damages only Labour or Labour and the Conservatives. It could do

:51:48.:51:50.

different things in different parts of the country. Whether that feeds

:51:51.:51:53.

to a general election, we would have to wait and see. Thank you very much

:51:54.:51:58.

for giving us that detail. I will not ask you about why the SNP lost

:51:59.:52:02.

that one local by-election. How did that happen? I was going to ask. The

:52:03.:52:11.

Lib Dems had to close the count because it was so empty, the hall.

:52:12.:52:13.

That's quite sad, isn't it? There was a mixture of approval

:52:14.:52:18.

and mockery this week when the Corbyn-supporting campaign

:52:19.:52:20.

group Momentum announced that it was setting up

:52:21.:52:22.

an activity group for children. Called Momentum Kids,

:52:23.:52:25.

it's intended to provide childcare for parents who want to get involved

:52:26.:52:27.

in political activism. Some thought this was an entirely

:52:28.:52:33.

sensible idea, but others weren't exactly keen on the idea that it

:52:34.:52:36.

might involve politicising children. Lib Dem leader Tim Farron dubbed

:52:37.:52:39.

the group Tiny Trots, and the idea may not have been

:52:40.:52:41.

helped by an advert for an event at this weekend's Labour conference

:52:42.:52:46.

featuring a "Teddy Bear Children were invited

:52:47.:52:48.

to bring their favourite toy, imagine what party it might join,

:52:49.:52:53.

think about what their teddy stands for, its values and how it might

:52:54.:52:56.

make positive changes. So, is this revolutionary

:52:57.:53:02.

brainwashing or an entirely harmless way to get more people

:53:03.:53:04.

involved in politics? Well, I'm joined now

:53:05.:53:06.

by the childrens' author Michael Rosen, and by Laura Perrins

:53:07.:53:08.

from the website Conservative Women. Welcome to both of you. Michael

:53:09.:53:15.

Rosen, is it ideological brainwashing? No, it's exactly what

:53:16.:53:21.

the Government recommends. If you look closely at the government's

:53:22.:53:25.

British values site, it says that schools should encourage children to

:53:26.:53:28.

demonstrate how democracy works. It's is those exact words -

:53:29.:53:32.

demonstrate how democracy works. That's what all schools should be

:53:33.:53:35.

doing. And what's wrong with that? Well, I think this is another great

:53:36.:53:39.

example of how the left, it's a rather sinister example of sort of

:53:40.:53:43.

grooming and for treating a very young child's mind onto a very

:53:44.:53:49.

leftist agenda. And we've always, there are plenty of examples of

:53:50.:53:53.

that. If it was just avoiding childcare, there's nothing wrong

:53:54.:53:57.

with that, but the idea that we are empowering children, very young

:53:58.:54:01.

toddlers and children to hold up placards, it's going little bit too

:54:02.:54:05.

far, I think. Didn't have the bit you read out say that they get to

:54:06.:54:11.

choose which party? Yes, if it was a right-wing grassroots organisation,

:54:12.:54:13.

perhaps like your own, what would be wrong with providing childcare and

:54:14.:54:17.

perhaps talking about politics? I think you have to be careful in

:54:18.:54:20.

terms of not trying to go behind the backs of parents and as I said,

:54:21.:54:27.

influencing the minds of very, very young children. Other parents not

:54:28.:54:32.

going along? Look, the parents will be politicking with the children

:54:33.:54:38.

separated in the crash. While they are out protesting. Michael Rosen,

:54:39.:54:43.

why is it necessary to have it with a political backdrop? If families

:54:44.:54:46.

want to talk politics at home or take their kids out on protests,

:54:47.:54:50.

they can do that, why does there have to be a political thing? There

:54:51.:54:58.

does not have to be at all. Why say, we will in some ways in Dockrell

:54:59.:55:02.

eight your children? There does not have to be at all. I belonged to

:55:03.:55:06.

left-wing groups when I was a child. I might have been indoctrinated!

:55:07.:55:11.

When you were very young children and I was no good at making

:55:12.:55:17.

placards! But the carrot is the free childcare. So it's quite clever, you

:55:18.:55:22.

could argue that it is never for a political party to offer free

:55:23.:55:24.

childcare and recruit new people, not people who are already

:55:25.:55:29.

indoctrinated like yourself! I feel very indoctrinated, thank you. But

:55:30.:55:32.

you could say, as people do, you cant things to children and show

:55:33.:55:37.

them things and demonstrate how democracy works, which is what the

:55:38.:55:41.

government recommends, and some children will walk away because

:55:42.:55:44.

they're bored stiff. Whatever they do it will have to be fun, because

:55:45.:55:49.

they are not at school, it is not punishment. It's always fun,

:55:50.:55:53.

indoctrination! What's the difference between sitting at the

:55:54.:55:57.

dinner papal with your family, putting the same newspapers in front

:55:58.:56:01.

of you all day basis, you're being indoctrinated from a fairly early

:56:02.:56:05.

age by your parents, so what would be wrong with extending that

:56:06.:56:09.

slightly? That's if you think parents and politicians are exactly

:56:10.:56:16.

the same ridge of course they're not. Let me finish, other people

:56:17.:56:21.

have a view. Of course political discussion around the dinner table

:56:22.:56:24.

should be encouraged, and I do it at home a lot. But that's very

:56:25.:56:29.

different to separating children, very young children, five and six,

:56:30.:56:32.

from their parents, hooding them in a room and setting about this, as I

:56:33.:56:37.

said, what is essentially indoctrination. It shows how extreme

:56:38.:56:44.

Momentum are. Would the SNP do it? I'm sitting here listening to this

:56:45.:56:48.

teddy business and it's a bit like Chairman Mao goads to Brideshead,

:56:49.:57:01.

isn't it? Jeremy Corbyn joins the Pooh Sticks society. I read the

:57:02.:57:05.

website, it wasn't exactly full with fun. What about children's books,

:57:06.:57:12.

lots of children's books have moral messaging in them? And I have one

:57:13.:57:22.

here, let's celebrate 25 years since the great Dr Zeuss died. What is the

:57:23.:57:29.

message? The message is that if you are poor and downtrodden, you should

:57:30.:57:34.

fight back. Have you read it? I've read a lot of yours, Michael Rosen,

:57:35.:57:39.

and I'm disturbed about this book being used to indoctrinate children.

:57:40.:57:43.

I read it to my kids all the time. All the family are underneath the

:57:44.:57:48.

duvet, and this is what the ordinary Labour Party members will be on

:57:49.:57:53.

Saturday. Are you reading some of this into everything here?! That's

:57:54.:57:57.

where middle Britain is, hiding under the covers! And sharing a bed

:57:58.:58:07.

as well, with an animal. I feel like this is a sort of Jackanory session.

:58:08.:58:11.

Andrew has fallen asleep. I was just reading the Harvard business review!

:58:12.:58:16.

Meanwhile, the answer to our quiz question...

:58:17.:58:18.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

:58:19.:58:22.

The question was which award-winning director has made a documentary

:58:23.:58:24.

I would love to see the Quentin Tarantino version, myself. You might

:58:25.:58:39.

see that this weekend! But I suspect it might be Ken Loach. And you're

:58:40.:58:42.

right! The One O'clock News is starting

:58:43.:58:46.

over on BBC One now. I'll be here on BBC One tonight

:58:47.:58:50.

after Question Time for the return of This Week, with Ed Vaizey,

:58:51.:58:53.

Lisa Nandy, Ken Livingstone, Miranda Green, Quentin Letts

:58:54.:58:56.

and Katie Price. If there is nothing new,

:58:57.:58:57.

then the Court of Appeal aren't going to change

:58:58.:59:07.

their decision.

:59:08.:59:11.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS