11/10/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Should UK war planes be deployed to Syria to enforce no-fly zones?

MPs hold an emergency debate on the humanitarian

After her whistle-stop tour review appeared in capitals, Theresa May

continues a European charm offensive, meeting the Croatian

Prime Minister in Downing Street. He's been Home Secretary,

Justice Secretary and Conservative big beast Ken Clarke

joins me to look back And could self-build houses

help solve the housing We report from Holland,

where cheap flat-pack This house was built in a factory.

They built it, they put it on a big truck, set it up in one day. It took

one day? It took one day. And with us for the whole

of the programme today the former Conservative Chancellor,

Home Secretary and Lord We never have time to list them all

in one go! God no, don't go through my tedious CV, it is very long!

In the next hour, MPs will discuss the situation in Syria

after the former International Development Secretary Andrew

Mitchell secured a debate in the House of Commons.

Speaking to the BBC earlier, Mr Mitchell argued that a no-fly

zone should now be enforced over Syria to protect civilians.

And that British planes could be involved. No one wants to see a

firefight with Russia, no one wants to shoot down a Russian plane, that

the international community has on about responsibility to protect,

which must be exerted. If that means confronting Russian ab power,

defensively, on behalf of the innocents on the ground, we are

trying to protect, we should do that. If it meant British planes

being involved, so be it? I think Britain should explore with lights

out force a no-fly zone. It is clearly not something we could do

alone, but as part of the coalition of the willing to confront this

awful catastrophe, we should do that if we are able to do so.

Ken Clarke, how practical is that suggestion of a no-fly zone, that we

the British would help in force? Obviously we cannot do it alone. The

question is what we would do if, which is unlikely, I think, the

American smooth to do that. We have been rejecting that for years

because the risk of direct conflict with Russians is very considerable,

there are lots of Russian Out to ground and ground to air missile

systems which are very modern and effective. It would be a very high

risk strategy. What is happening in Aleppo is one of the several major

crises in the world, the British alone will not be able to do

anything. He said it would not be Britain

alone but he wanted Britain to take the central role because they that

because he says they still have a strong diplomatic position, which we

could argue about. Andrea Mitchell likens Russia to the Nazis in 1930s

Spain in terms of breaking international law, they are

destroying United Nations in its ability to act in the way that the

Germans and Italians to strike the league of Nations in the 1930s. He

is trying to make it so serious that there is a call to action, if you

like? These historic comparisons... He is right to dramatise it. Here's

a friend of mine, but the attitude to warfare in the Second World War

was very different to now. Strongly support the idea that we now have a

rule of international law. The Russians are breaking it? Certainly.

They say they are sovereign and all that. They are binding on a lot

about sovereignty. I think we should all abide by international law, we

should put pressure on them. It has not worked. Angie says we should

discuss with allies. -- Andrew says. With our allies, we have declined to

do this for several years, one can only hope that worldwide pressure,

the shock, horror at the scale of civilian losses just likely in

Aleppo might get the Russians and the Syrians to modify what they are

doing. What do you think Theresa May's instinct would be, and will

be, over this situation? Andrew Mitchell says he has spoken to her,

and like any person would be, it is sympathetic. But beyond that, what

would her instincts be? I don't know. As a guess? I think her

reaction to the humanitarian tragedy would be the same as any other

civilised person. When you are Prime Minister you have a key role with

the Foreign Secretary in deciding how far you will escalate this. The

most important thing is what view she takes with President Obama if,

which I doubt, President Obama starts contemplating doing this. Is

there any point in having this debate? Well, I think it will give

rise to almost universal agreement on all sides that this is an

outrage. The shock and horror at the likely scale and more civilian

casualties to the ones we have already had. The British are slow to

come to terms with that diminishing role in the world and are viewed by

the rest of the world, I may say so, particularly since the Brexit vote,

as America's most faithful satellite. Russians, I have met

Russians who have told me that if we want to know what British foreign

policy is, we ring up Washington. So I hope the speeches this afternoon

do not start imagining that any of this can happen without Washington

agreeing to do this. Let's leave it there.

The question for today is, "What is Theresa May

reported to have banned from Cabinet meetings?"

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

The Government is adamant there will be no running

But MPs on all sides of the House are arguing that Parliament

should have a final say on the UK's negotiating terms.

Number Ten says these MPs are trying to thwart

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU defended

the Government's right to proceed without Parliament's

Let's take a look at some of the exchanges.

The referendum was backed by 6-1 in this House

and on all sides of the argument, Leave and Remain, we have a duty

to respect and carry out the people's instructions.

As I said, the mandate is clear and we'll reject any attempt to undo

the referendum result, any attempt to hold up the process

unduly or any attempt to keep Britain in the EU by the back door

by those who didn't like the answer they were given on June 23rd.

During the referendum campaign, much was made on the Leave

side about parliamentary sovereignty.

In his statement, the Secretary of State says, "We will return

sovereignty to the institutions of this United Kingdom."

Yet it seems the Government wants to draw up negotiating terms,

negotiate and reach a deal without any parliamentary approval.

That is not making Parliament sovereign.

Can I point out to him that if he is to advise his opposite

number, he might remind him that the repeal of the 72

European Communities Act, will give many, many opportunities

to amend and debate every single aspect of the discussions around

And just in case they haven't noticed, they always have the device

of Opposition Days when they can debate absolutely anything

they choose, even the whole issue of the European Union.

So may I urge him to get on with the process and don't listen

to those who really want to bog it down and never let it happen.

Three days before he was appointed, the Secretary of State published

an article saying it was very important to publish

Can he tell us when is he going to publish that white paper?

And as someone who, for many years, railed about the importance

of the powers of backbenchers and Parliament against

the executive, can he give us, now, with a straight face,

an answer to the question - where is the Government's mandate

for its negotiations, either from this House

I've been a great admirer of the Secretary of State

for his staunch defence of civil liberties and his staunch defence

I was a great admirer when he moved the bill on parliamentary control

of the executive in 1999, where he stirringly told us that

executive decisions by the Government should be

subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament.

So, could he tell us, on the basis of what constitutional

principle, can he believe now that the Prime Minister can now

arregate for herself, the exclusive right to interpret

what Brexit means, impose it upon the country,

rather than respect the rightful role of scrutiny

My right honourable friend will be aware that sometimes it is very

important to pay attention to the Liberal elite

and he will be aware that on referendum night we were told,

"I will forgive no-one who does not respect the sovereign

voice of the British people once it has spoken,

When the British people have spoken, you do what they command,

either you believe in democracy or you do not."

Those were the words of Lord Ashdown on Norton-sub-Hamdon in the district

of Somerset, who is the most elitist Liberal I know.

Can I, therefore, urge my right honourable friend to be true

to the views of Lord Ashdown, to the principles of Liberalism

and the traditions of this House and give affect to the

17 million votes were cast on June 23rd for Britain to leave

the European Union and attempts by anti-democratic and ill-liberal

voices on the opposition benches, to thwart the British

people's will, will rightly, be treated with disdain.

We're joined now by the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who campaigned

Welcome to the programme. Ken Clarke, would you support the call

from Labour and the Liberal Democrats for a vote on the

Government's initial negotiating position? Yes, I will. The problem

with the referendum was that nobody voted for anything, no two

Brexiteers entirely agreed with each other on exactly what you would do

in the event of them winning it. We are now deeply immersed, because it

is the most urgent problem, in trade arrangements with Europe and a lot

of other countries in the rest of the world which were the subject

matter of the referendum -- which were not the subject matter of the

referendum in the faintest detail. First shows the overriding

constitutional situation. We have a Parliamentary democracy, Government

is made better when made accountable of the details of what it does to a

representative. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the opening remark, no two Brexiteers

had the same vision. So there has to be a vote on that initial

negotiating stance? I think this is wrong, it is fascinating but none of

the pro-Remainers asked for a debate on David Cameron's negotiating terms

before he did his wee negotiation. That was deemed to be a perfectly

normal exercise by the Government of its powers. It is unknown to have

this type of vote on what a Government may negotiate. Parliament

scrutinises what has been done rather than authorised. It may be

unknown, but is it wrong to have some sort of vote by Parliament,

bearing in mind sovereignty was such a cornerstone of your whole

campaign? Why deny parliament that sovereignty? Parliament is not

denied any God at all. It is having a vote tomorrow on an opposition Day

motion... That is not binding in any way. Legislation comes at the end of

the process, not be beginning. The constitution is very

straightforward, it has separation of powers between the executive, the

legislature and the judiciary. The executive links the day-to-day

decisions, they require legislative approval for which they had to go to

Parliament, Parliament provides redress of grievances. As yet there

is no grievance because there is no decision. Your concern and your call

for a vote at this opening stage will just feel the argument that you

just want to thwart the referendum result? That is a way of getting out

of debating what we are going for. The Government does not know what it

is going for, although at Conference they are effectively announced we

are leaving the single market and the customs union, the very reverse

of what was argued in the referendum, because everyone was in

favour of free trade and remaining are trading links. The idea that you

can interpret Parliamentary sovereignty in the constitution,

which Jacob and I are both ardent supporters of, Parliament never

discusses policy. Parliament cannot vote on policy. It can only wait to

see whatever the Government wants to do and allow it to happen, only then

can it a vote when the Government has committed the country to all

these decisions. That is a startling diminution of the role of

Parliament. Even in the face of a referendum. Just before I come back

to you, Jacob Rees-Mogg, when you say that the vote to Leave did not

automatically mean leaving the single market, what does it mean to

leave the EU if it is not to leave the single market? Different voters

had different views on both sides. A lot of it is interpreted as wanting

fewer foreigners. But there were many intelligence and perfectly

civilised people on the Leave side with different arguments. One thing

all the Leave people agreed on was the virtue of free trade. For 40

years I have been an party divided over Europe, the one thing we all

agree on is how marvellous free traders. Liam Fox still makes the

case. Now we are going protection is.

That's the wrong. The sippingle market is not free trade much it is

protectionism on a European scale of the outside the single market and

customs union we can have genuine free trade and people voted to leave

the European Union. The single market and customs union are the

main stay of the European Union. If we remain in those, we have not left

the European Union. Do you accept that? We ruled out staying in.

The key thing, for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, if

we possible can, stay in the single market and customs union and Jacob

agrees with me. I think Jacob mees mog is saying the single mark set

San intrinsic part of being in the EU. If you leave the EU, you do

leave the single market. It is It is the biggest free trade area the in

world. 500 million. It is a free trade area, you don't want to be

part of it. It is a regulated ynchts all markets are regulated. It brings

ne. U regulation, EU courts and EU law. If we remain until the single

market, we remain until the European Union, we have to leave it and we

also have, crucially, customs barriers against the rest of the

world which in some cases are very high. It is not free trade if we

remain in the single market. Do you accept it wasn't explicit in the

vote leave campaign, that actually it was left vague enough that

somehow there was a reluctance to state very clearly, at that point,

that voting to Leave the EU, would automatically, in the minds of the

vote Leave campaign, mean leaving the single market? I think that was

obvious. It wasn't stated clearly. It might have been obvious to you.

Within the campaign it was stated very clearly that once we left, we

would need to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union.

There would have been no need to do that if we remained in the single

market and the vote was about leaving the European Union. Yet the

single market is the heart, the beating heart of the European Union.

If we were still part of, that our blood circulation would be caused by

the European Union. Forgive me with the medical analogy. You do accept

that leaving the EU meant not being part of the European part, European

Commission, not being part of the key EU institutions, including the

single market. No, no. Different breaks etteers argued different

things during the referendum dch - Brexiteers. But the majority argued

that leaving the European Union need have no effect on our economic

relationships. People said - this is our biggest single market, the only

set of countries with whom we have negotiated, completely free entry

for most of our goods and quite a lot of our services, we previously

were trying to get more. When we argue that it is very important to

our future economics position, Brexiteers said - oh that's all

right, they'll give us that because we are so important to them we'll

carry on as before. First thing we are doing now, is withdrawing from

it all. On that basis, if you say it was obvious to everybody who voted

Leave that Britain would then leave the single market because, as you

say, it is the beating heart of the EU, does that mean the Government

has a mandate it take us out of anything that has EU fingerprints on

it? We have a mandate to leave the European Union. Sure. The European

aviation safety agency? We don't have to be part - we cannot remaybe

part of any European body that is exclusively members of the European

Union and has the European Court of Justice as its ultimate arbiter, but

on the point of the single market, the EU is in the midst of

negotiations with the United States and with Canada to increase access

to its market by those countries. It hasn't been ratified the Canadians

said and has taken a long time. But it would be bizarre for the European

Union to put up trade barriers on a country, which on the day we leave,

meets all its regulatory requirements. If they wish to do

they'll harm their own economy. They may chose to do that but it would be

an eccentric thing for them to do. What do you say about this, that

there would be an almost of self-harm to punish Britain, if you

like, by leaving the EU, and trying to associate some sort of trade deal

which Boris Johnson said, we can have our cake and eat it which for

many meant staying part of the single market. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg

right, that they won't harm themselves or risking tariffs being

put on goods that they would like to import from Britain in these

negotiations? Well, there will be some harm to the continental

economy, that is right. The things we are asking of them are things

they can't possibly concede, that every other country they have any

trade relationship with - and some of the weaker Member States,

demanding exactly the same. Once you say - we are going to stop free

movement of labour, your nationals are going to require work visas if

they come in our bit of the single market, once we say we are not going

to obey the rules of the market, we are going to make them all British

first, but when we can think of one we want to repeal and at the moment

the Brexiteers can't, we'll change or we will look for some that we

want it change to make them British and we are not going to accept the

European Court. Because the European Court. The reason the EU works is

the European Court enforces the treaty obligations on 28 governments

who wouldn't otherwise agree. The last big case we had there was a

triumph because we were able to get into eurozone financial markets. I

think Mr Clarke in that answer which shows which remaining in the single

market remains leaving in the European Union. Hep doesn't want to

leave the European Union, he regrets the vote and staying under the

auspices of the European Court of Justice in anyway... Which case have

we lost? It is a superior law So is the international court in The

Hague. Are we pulling out of them all? No, it applies law that we

apply via Parliament which ECJ law is our law amount and doesn't

require approval. Give us some example of laws you have been

unhappy about or you would appeal? Into well things that affect my

farmers, the three crop ru. The ban on neonicotine ooids. The 40-working

week when we had a opt-out under the social charter that. 'S the point of

it. That the European Court has been a politicising court pushing

ever-closer to the European Union. Are there key Ken Clarke decisions

One we lost, I was around when it happened, we went there, contrary to

our own legal advice, arguing that the working time corrective, the

48-hour rule was not a health regulation. The reason Victorians

prere stricted hours of work was for health. We lost that. Theresa made

it quite clear, one thing we are not going to do is start tightening up

on labour regulations, so we are not going take advantage of leaving so

people are obliged to work more than 48 hours if they don't want to. A

law you would appeal, the minute we have subsupered all that of European

law into British law, and then you keep t which would you get rid of

it. I would get rid of the three crop rule straightaway. There are

hundreds of rules. You say that. Ban chemicals and pesticides, if you

think about agriculture. I represent a rural constituency Is and Friends

of the Earth there? It would give us freedom to set our own fishing

quotas that would benefit our fishermen. We would be able to have

light bulb that work so people can see in the dark. There are all sorts

of useful issues. People would argue it is not intrinsic for life. We can

have all these German car that is are poisoning us and people are

trigger the figurers, we wouldn't have to have them. Well, there have

been a dramatic fall in the value of sterling, we had already had aer if

cast saying there would be a 4% hit to GDP in Brexit and a cathedral the

aic drop in tax revenues and today on the front page of the Times

leaked papers say that Brexit can cost ?66 billion a year R they all

scare stories or are they the bumps in the road It is not a he can laked

paper. It is a bad paper it put together, a dishonest Pape ter

putted together during the Brexit campaign which said if we left the

European Union and imposed tariffs on everybody who sells to us, we

would have a bad economic time. It is a completely stupid paper and the

Treasury is undermining the Government's own negotiating

position and it is really serious that the Treasury is behaving like

this Or Or is there any truth? It is an abuse of its position. It is a

bogus report. I accept your point that there should be an inquiry.

Just on sterling. Well on sterling and reports there could be 5 p a

litre on petrol by the end of the week, are they the bumps in the

road? Well the oil price has gone up, it always has an faevenlingt

well, devaluation, the last two devaluations in this country, 1992,

before you took over as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1931 when we

went for gold standard, led to enormous increases in the prosperity

of the country. This is nothing to do with Brexit? No, Brexit has

brought forward the devaluation of the knot pound which was considered

by the OMF and EOCD to be overvalued. What about that? Well,

that is being too technical, the tariffs, that was all settled by the

referendum, apparently. But what about devaluation? Since 2006 when

we had the financial crash, we have devalued by 40%. We now have the

worst current account deficit, usually most people call it the

balance of payment, that we have had in our history. The eurosceptic

argument that junking your own currency is somehow a marvellous

advantage, which they have pedalled for years is, I fear, an illusion,

an absolute illusion. The markets did collapse, I agree, given the

state of affairs we have, it was probably slightly overvalue bud they

collapsed because their judgment was the long-term outlook of the British

economy was bad. I mean we are no longer the nift biggest economy in

the world, we are the sixth now. Already. And we are going to go

further if we are not careful. Briefly and finally, Jacob

Rees-Mogg. If being poorer as a nation for a short period of time,

you may not believe we are going to be poorer as a nation at all. But if

it is the price to pay for what you see as controlling borders and a

return of sovereignty, is that worth it? We will be richer we will be

outside the dead-handed control of the European Union. We can set our

own tariffs, have cheaper goods coming N It ridiculous report from

some lobby group yesterday saying the price of goodwill go up. It'll

go down. Why? We can reduce tariffs against the rest of the world, which

in the EU we can't do. All the scaremongering put to one side and

look beautifully, behind you, the picture of broad, sunny uplands.

Thank you. Cast your mind back

to the Labour party conference and the speech given

by Labour's London Mayor, His message - Labour needs to win

election to wield real power. Labour out of power will never,

ever be good enough. We can only improve lives

with Labour in power, by winning elections,

by putting Labour values Real Labour values -

equality, social justice It's only with Labour in power

that we can create a fairer, And when Labour is not in power,

we fail the very people Well, today, a left-of-centre think

tank, the New Economics Foundation, has published its plan for pursuing

policies outside of government, with ideas such as locally produced

energy, childcare co-operatives All aimed at giving people more

control over their lives. The NEF's Chief Executive,

a former speechwriter Welcome to the programme S this

added mission that the left are going to be out of power for a

generation? No, it begins with the assumption, the truth that we are in

a terrible state as a country, that the economy doesn't work for

millions of people. That Leave voters, we know they felt they

didn't have control and this is' why they voted to leave the European

Union but we have polled Remain voters too and found the same

output. 25%, just 25% of Remain voters say their voices count in

politics. So we are in a mess. We need real change and we can't wait

for any general election, whenever that might be. Do you agree with

Sadiq Khan, the best way to affect change is to win an election? Where

we find ourselves now, is there are new opportunities for change than

there have ever been before. Sad evening Khan, as devolved mayor has

an opportunity to do things in London which his predecessors

couldn't have town down and that will be true in Manchester. There

are innovative businesses starting all over the country. Trade unions,

interested in create sowing enterprise communities. We live in a

time when politics, and general elections matter but there are a

different ways of doing things than we have in the past It sounds like

you have given up on the mainstream process because it doesn't get

things done that people actually want and isn't from your side of the

spectrum, if you like. Is there some truth in that, you will be lobbying

for power and effective change rather than running the show? Some

of my best friends are politicians. You admit That they are important

people but all politician, even Ken would acknowledge, we are in a

situation where the public has moved away from thinking about mainstream,

Westminster, Whitehall politics, as the primary solution to the

challenges we face They are looking, people of all parties and none, are

looking for new ways, fresh ways of getting things done now, rather than

having to wait for a general election.

Do you agree with that assessment? I don't. I agree with the analysis

of the unsatisfactory state of public opinion whether political

class is held with contempt, lots of young people switch off from

politics altogether and a lot of old people feel let down by the

consequences of automation and change under more complicated world

and so on. But in the middle of it all, the real politics, for most

mainstream people, concerns the better governance of the country. In

the end, you require a government. Government policies affect these

things, all our lives, therefore, in the end, holding political power and

the ability to put what you believe are issues in the national interest

in effect, that is what most politicians had to be about. I have

not read this paper, to be fair, but the extracts sent to me rather nice,

rather naive, probably, perhaps worth trying, one two, but local

experiments that might be tried to see if they have an effect in one or

two parts of the country is not governing Britain in a very

difficult, dangerous and changing world. It reminded me a little bit

of David Cameron's Big Society, locally produced energy, childcare

cooperatives, taxi apps run by the drivers. This is small scale

solutions run by local people? I just left an event that we are

running at The New Economic Foundation, we heard from one career

driver paid the London living wage whose every move is tracked by

headquarter at head office, who feels as their life has got totally

out of control, they can't earn enough to feed their families but

their workplace experience is really dire. We have tabbed solutions to

those problems. The Government has a big challenge ahead, we have talked

about that throughout the programme, the Brexit debate will not go away,

Parliamentary time will be sucked up thinking about our relationship with

the European Union, but I can't stand there and look in the face of

people living with the real troubles of our economy and say, well, we

will not do anything because that sounds like Big Society or too

small-scale. It is the job of people like as in the think tank world to

think about solutions to put in place tomorrow which would change

people's lives for the better. Is that a worthwhile cause if, as the

accusation goes, the Government will be consumed by Brexit negotiations?

There is a real danger that it will be, and we have important things to

handle. Obviously I am a former Chancellor and all that, the key to

these problems is proper management of the economy, recovering growth,

lowering inflation and sustaining it. I quite agree that we have to

address how to spread the benefits of our better. Capitalists,

free-market enthusiasts, the too long have overlooked the fact that

there is a whole section of the population, particularly in the

change industrial North and North Midlands, left behind. Start with

the good governance of the country, having the right Chancellor, not Mr

McDonnell, then look at all these things that might spread the

benefits better and make sure people don't fall through the gaps. Thank

you very much becoming in, Mark. -- for coming in.

My guest of the day - Ken Clarke - has enjoyed a political

He served as Health Secretary, Education Secretary,

Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer in

He was then called back into frontline politics by David Cameron,

joining the Cabinet as Justice Secretary in 2010.

He's just published his memoirs, "Kind of Blue", and we'll talk

a bit about Ken's life in politics in just a moment.

# Seas would rise when I gave the word.

MUSIC PLAYS: Viva La Vida by Coldplay.

Apologies for presenting this first Budget rather like a lion tamer

trying out his act for the first time, but I've decided

to tackle the difficulties I face in a direct way.

Go away, lie down in a dark room, keep taking the tablets

and think very carefully whether the Liberal Democrats

have a single opinion one way or the other on the merits of any

We're searching for a leader who will be seen by the public

Well, oh, boy, have you kept me waiting!

Theresa's a bloody difficult woman, but you and I worked

Ken Clarke, you were enjoying that? I haven't seen some of those clips

for ages, did not know they existed. You have been in politics for a very

long time, as we can see from Buzz archive clips. How has it changed in

your view, and has changed for the better? In some ways are probably

has. It was deferential and class divided when I started, there was a

huge difference between the tweedy nights on the shires on the

Conservative benches on the very working class guys on the Labour

benches, it was tribal. Most families voted the same way all the

time. Do you not think it is tribal? An awful lot of people under the age

of 50 decide who they will vote for two or three days before polling

day, which makes it so exciting but uncertain. In other ways it has

diminished, because Parliament was more powerful when I started.

Everything was rooted in Parliament. Although things were a bit too

deferential, Government was properly accountable, very collective.

Cabinet ministers had to agree things. The Parliament and the Prime

Minister was a powerful first among equals. Sensible debate took place

in the media, who were a bit too deferential but reported serious

issues. Now it is all celebrity culture, public relations, can we

get something about simply's sex life all money? If not, what

exciting thing can we hang the news on two? Has that grabs your style,

this practice of modern politics about message discipline, sticking

to the line, media grids and so on? Have you find that difficult? I have

totally ignored it! But has not escaped a goodness, thank -- that is

not escaped our notice, thank goodness. David was very kind, I

went football years without going along with this stuff. I think there

was a Ken Clarke rule. I think it has damaged politics, the talking

clock type of politics and the slogan eyes is not the main thing

but is one of the things that has fed a low level of regard for

politicians. Good god you say that David Cameron and his acolytes gave

you free rein or just accepted that Ken Clarke was Ken Clarke, but you

said you felt plotted against an deceived when he discovered in 2014,

and I remember this happening, that Downing Street advisers were trying

to stop you from appearing on Question Time. Why? Because they

were not sure what I would say and I would not use the slogan. It was a

silly, childish incident. The way they went about it, which I will

discuss if you want me to come in time, it was lying to me and the

producer and trying to slip in the more, in their opinion, conformist

advocate. How did they explain it to you? Said the programme had made a

mistake and book two conservatives, so unfortunately they were sticking

with the other one, that they would have me on some time in future. The

producer was called by the same people and told I was very ill, and

this was not being made public because it was a personal health

matter, I was not able to go, and they, very helpfully, could provide

simply to take my place at very short notice. It never occurred to

them but I would ring the producer and said, I thought we had fixed

this ages ago, what went wrong? They miscalculated. You served three

Conservative prime ministers, how did they compared? They were all

quite remarkable people, completely and utterly different personalities.

Ted and Margaret were two of the most one of personalities I have

ever met, unlike each other, chalk and cheese. John Major was the

ultimate nice guy being battered hopelessly. Cameron was the classic

purveyor of the Blair style of Government. Very successful at

first. He will not be given credit for it but Cameron and Osborne

rescued the country from financial catastrophe. Thereafter, they got

into... Back to the old politics, although Thatcher was a bloody

difficult woman... You need to be careful with that phrase! And I had

a very robust relationship with her, she was the best Prime Minister, I

had to concede. The Thatcher Government was the one that

transformed the country for the better. The Major Government

consolidated and continued it in the same way, presented slightly more

gently, but Thatcher was the remarkable one to work for.

Do you think you changed yourself for the perception of how you were

viewed by other politicians? Chewing the coalition, Nick Clegg voted --

joked that he counted you as one of the Lib Dems, the Spectator called

you yellow can. Did you acquire a more cuddly image? I said to Nick

Clegg, you are a one nation Conservative. You only joined the

Lib Dems because we were so fanatically anti-European at that

time. Leaving that to one side, politics

has moved. I am a believer in free market economic is with the social

consequence -- conscience, I am an economic and social liberal. UR a

diminishing breed on the Conservative benches? The Europeans

remain in the majority on the Conservative benches, as in every

other political party in the House of Commons, apart from the

Democratic Unionists, but we are all slightly isolated. Being one of the

stronger pro-Europeans who never agreed with the idea of a referendum

anyway, with a constituency that voted to Remain, I am probably a bit

on my own, but that happens to most bedroom politicians. And does not

bother you? Not at all. We will have to do your addiction to standing for

the leadership another time. Jeremy Corbyn took part

in the regular Monday night meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party

last night - his first MPs had a chance to raise concerns

ranging from the recent reshuffle The Labour Leader was also asked why

he had attended an anti-racism rally over the weekend that was allegedly

linked to the far-left group the Socialist Workers'

Party, which critics say It was founded as the Socialist

Review Group in 1950. It describes itself as a rational --

revolutionary socialist group. They have been involved in various

campaigns over the years, for example former leading members of

the SWP helped to set up the Stop The War Coalition to campaign

against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In 2013, the SWP was mired in

controversy because, it was claimed, they mishandled sexual assault

allegations against an individual who was at the time one of their

members. We invited the SWP onto the

programme, but they declined. They also said that Standard To Racism is

not a front organisation for the is to be be. So Steve Hart, the

vice-chair of Standard To Racism joins us, along with a Labour

supporting journalist, James Bloodworth. Steve, you helped to

organise this event on Saturday, what was it about and were Socialist

workers involved? First of all, I am Labour supporting, I am the chair of

the biggest constituency Labour Party in the country. It was an

event about confronting anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and

racism. It was particularly focusing around issues of refugees and,

indeed, the racist atmosphere that had begun to develop in some places

after Brexit. It was 1400 people. And the Socialist Workers' Party's

involvement is what? They were involved, as they have been in many

things, fighting fascism over the years. Are they a dominant force in

Standard To Racism? One of their leading figures is co-convenor? That

is right. They are not a dominant force, they are participants in

Stand Up To Racism, along with many, many others. Alf Dubs was one of the

speakers on Saturday. And he has campaigned for child refugees to be

taken in. He has been a participant all the way through. The Muslim

Council of Britain has been involved. What was the problem? With

Jeremy Corbyn attending this rally? I wroo call them a front group for

far left groups. The socialist Workers' Party is not a very -

Trotskyism isn't popular so they form front groups around issues

which are more pop larks anti-racism, anti--er with a and use

it to try to recruit members. In case of the socialist Workers'

Party, it is an organisation which many of us believe isn't safe for

women. There was a scandal around 2013. We objected to the leader of

the Labour Party giving it kind of - making this organisation credible

where you have someone like Weyman Bennett who is at the top of this

organisation Do you accept that criticism. Associating yourself with

this organisation and the Labour MP, Jeff Phillips certainly said there

shouldn't be a connection in what will you are trying to do in Stand

Up to Racism, and the Socialist Workers' Party because of the way

they mishandled sexual assault allegations. Well, I think she is

fantastic in what she does. Jess Phillips spoke at one of our rallies

in April 2015. She obviously didn't, at that point, see that as an issue.

The SWP, as you have said, had serious issues around this. But

then, so did the BBC, so did the Catholic Church. I'm here today, I'm

not boycotting the BBC. The police have investigated those allegations.

The problem with the SDW, they persuaded women who were victims of

sexual assault not to go to the police. And there are groups who

persuade their members not to go to the rally. There is an extensive

list of people, are they all wrong? I saw a call for boycotting last

Tuesday. 1500 people from up and down the country, from groups

supporting refugees in Calais, and other groups that had already signed

up to this. They are people who want to come. We are well aware of the

situation. - who are well aware of the situation. For me, what really

matters is let's try and find what unites us. I think we should be

doing more, Government made some moves yesterday but we really need

to get the children fromical clay. Sure Tonight I'm going to a vigil in

Tottenham because a woman had her hijab torn off her. A lot of people

are coming together, Stand Up to To Racism is organising that. People

uniting against racism is a good thing. That's my politics. The

socialist Workers' Party are not serious on the issue of

anti-Semitism. This is an organisation that believes in the

objectlies of the state of Israel. For most people it is an

anti-Semitic place it start N I don't think they should be involved

in an anti-racist campaign. If you are not serious about anti-Semitism,

you cannot be serious about anti-racism across the board I'm the

vice chair and I'm extremely serious about anti-Semitism and I'm

extremely - regard it as extremely important that our organisation will

stand up to racism. How do you feel about the People in the Socialist

Workers Party that don't? Every time they have spoken about t it is

clear, anti-Semitism is a problem. They along with others, have been

campaigning around Irishes of anti-Semitism, recently. Do you

think you are diminishing the value of your protests n terms of

anti-racism, in terms of campaigning on behalf of child refugees, by

association with the Socialist Workers Party when you come up with

criticism by people like James Bloodworth and Jess Phillips? Well

my opinion and I'm not on the far left, I actually voted for Owen

Smith. I want to bring people together. Where there are issues

around racism, I want to bring everybody together. I would like to

see Mrs Varsi, we had had Tim Farron taking place in our rallies. I have

huge respect for the anti-racism campaign but I would say they are

being used by the SWP by group to recruit to their party. Similar Stop

the War. It is a supporter of the regime in North Korea. These are

regimes that people of left or right should be wanting to distance

themselves from. You don't want to see Jeremy Corbyn attending these?

Absolutely not. It lends credibility to them of which there should be

none. Could self-build homes be the answer

to England's housing shortage? From later this month,

councils in England will be obliged to sell plots of land to anyone

wanting to build their own home, and supporters of the idea reckon it

will help increase the supply Mark Lobel has been

to the Netherlands to see how A great place for boats,

tulips and museums. If you want to go house hunting

here, what better way I've

joined a delegation of British MPs, planners, and industry

insiders in search of well, not a standard build

but a self-build or custom-built house on a piece of land

with all the utilities I feel like I'm on the set

of Grand Designs. First stop is Europe's biggest

experiment in affordable I'm just asking because there are no

windows on the front of your house. People are thinking that

I love my privacy and I do, but it has nothing to do

with my neighbours. And when it's dark, you can't

see anything outside. Can I join you on your building

site? They build it, put it on a big truck

and they set it up in one day. There is an equivalent city

of custom-built houses Gravenhill in Oxfordshire

will accommodate almost 2,000 homes. Visiting Holland, these Cherwell

district councillors are on the board of Gravenhill

Village Development Company, a commercial operation

owned by the council. What Gravenhill provides

is the land, the plot, a significant We are also looking at things

like planning and This isn't a big grand design,

you need to have cash in the bank. This is about how can

you build your dream home at different levels of your life

and spending different But at the moment the UK

lags behind its European neighbours and America,

with only one-tenth of its housing stock from self

or custom-built houses. Government land is sold

through an agency called the Homes and Communities Agency

and their legal documents You need to sit down with mortgage

providers and persuade them it's going to be worth their while to

adjust their computer systems to providing staged payment

mortgages for custom builds. A senior figure in the mortgage

industry on the visit told me self-build mortgages require

a 20% larger deposit than conventional builds,

that available land Well, I wrote the Self Build and

Custom House Building Act and got it That's now been strengthened

by the Government in this year's So, there's a further obligation

on local councils to actually provide serviced plots of land,

enough planning permission with serviced plots of land to deal

with the demand as evidenced The Ministry of Defence's head

of accommodation policy was also investigating custom

house-building here. The MoD wants more staff

on the housing ladder and is considering self-build

for service personnel. The ministry of the defence has more

than 2% of the land in the UK. They need quite a lot

of that for training. They don't need all of it

and they are looking at selling it I'm saying they should be a bit more

imaginative about how they do that So maybe one day more land could be

available for custom housing and members of the Armed Forces

could be able to design We've been joined in the studio

by Michael Holmes, chair of the National Custom

Self Build Association. Welcome to the programme. Do you

really think they could actually help solve the housing shortage?

This could be a significant part of house building. You have seen the

figures where it is provided elsewhere in Europe, America, Japan,

Australia, New Zealand. Developed economies have a major owner

commissioned sector in which the people who live in the houses get

involved in the design and construction. It is in their

interests to do so. But the problem is still available land. The problem

we face here and the planning law that is go along with T how do you

go over that? Right-to-build edge legislation which commences on

October 31st will be a game change. Land at the moment comes to market

as major strategic building sites that only the major house builders

can access and land for the smaller sector is more or less dried up. It

is an issue with the planning system. Right-to-build legislation

places a duty on local authorities to build forward sites that are

broken up to access plots. They'll become available for individuals who

would like to buy and commission and build their own homes, it could be

DIY. But most likely an SME. DIY that could take me ten years. Isn't

it for people who have some money, rather than affordable Currently,

you need a substantial deposit to be able it self-build. Only large plots

come to market. 20% higher we heard in the film. However that may not be

the case. Elsewhere in Europe they have a scheme called, I Builds

Affordal where the local authority owns or you lease the land for them.

You only have the cost of the build. Land is 60 to # 0%. If you take that

component out and lease it on a fair rent you only have the cost of

building t makes it much more affordable. What about the look. One

of the biggest complaints from neighbours when their neighbours are

building a house s what it'll look like. Yes, dove he sign codes, if

you are Conservative and you would like to make sure your neighbour

looks similar to yours, you choose a plot with a restricted design code

which tells you, within this glass box, the space you can fill. If you

are more avanlt guard you can chose an area where there is more freedom.

Do you think this'll go down well in your constituency? Interesting. I

think would be great rows about the ate peerns of them in my

constituency is the honest assessment. I'm not sure my

constituency is the kind of place that Michael is aiming at anyway. It

can be apartments. My DIY is limited to changing a light bulb. I find it

interesting. Nothing puts me off. I think it can make a contribution. I

think the bigger problems in housing should keep trying it tackle, go

beyond this, we have big problems of speeding up the planning system

which is slowly happening and then the delays between planning consent

and building and housing finance and the fact it is all dominated by big

developers, who have no incentive whatever to get on with building and

there aren't enough small plots. Other countries don't have to do t

this DIY, many other countries a lot of homes are one-off which the

owners have commissioned themselves from a small builder Precisely. And

they have, you know, proper housing - a house that takes longer to

build. That's custom build and that's what we think should be

happening. It is owner commissioned housing, not DIY. A small proportion

to the market, 10%, the big growth proposition is small SME builders

and packaged companies that can build off plans and kit, helping

people to have their own individual design quickly, it is a whole area

of housing that appeals to the market that don't want to buy the

new builds of major house builders. Can you built one? I have built my

own home. The DIY proportion was small. I left it to the

professionals. Most people do. Time to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, "What is Theresa May reported to have banned

So, Ken, what is the correct answer?

It's Apple watches. Do you have one? No, I have a mobile

phone. It is switched off. If anybody wanted to intercept our

conversation for the last hour, they should do. So you shouldn't take

this into account. I'm in the banning anything from our studio

today. That's it. Thank you to Ken Clarke for