31/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Government comes under fire over its funding


for the NHS in England, as MPs say the Prime Minister's


claim that it's getting a ?10 billion boost is "false".


The race to replace Nigel Farage heats up as nominations


One candidate pulls out at the last minute and accuses the top


of the party of treating the contest "like a coronation".


Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green promises personalised support


to help more people move from benefits into work.


We'll look at the Government's plans for welfare reform.


And we've exclusive behind-the-scenes access


to the House of Commons voting lobby, where old traditions


are being updated with digital technology.


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole


of the programme today, the Minister for Disabled People,


And, soon, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Debbie Abrahams.


Let's start with the warning today from the Conservative chair


of the Health Select Committee that the NHS in England


is under enormous pressure and needs more more money.


Sarah Wollaston also says that Government claims that the NHS


in England is due to receive an extra ?10 billion


It gives a false impression that the NHS is awash with cash,


and in fact if you look at the way that figure is reached,


it's by adding another year to the Spending Review and also


by changing pots of money from one part of the health budget


to another, so for example taking money out of public health


And so it can give an impression that more is given when in fact


the real figure is very considerably lower.


Sarah Wallerstein there. The real figure, she says, is 4.5 billion, so


less than half. Is she right, or the Government? I have a great deal of


respect for Sarah and she has said good things about the need to get


more money into prevention and primary care, but I think she is


wrong on the numbers. We have funded the NHS' own plan, they asked us, we


asked them how much they needed, they said in Italy 8 billion, that


rose to ten and we have given them that money. But hang on, the money


is going to NHS in England, which is, albeit important, one part of


the NHS. What Sarah Wollaston was saying is that other parts of the


NHS, such as social care, is losing money, money taken from the budget


to boost another part, so the NHS as a whole is not getting a ?10 billion


boost. Two points, first of all we have funded the NHS' own plan, the


second thing is, with regard to the other services such as social care


that local Government funds, local Government reserves have doubled


since 2010, there are 22.5 billion currently sat in local Government


reserve accounts. Every local Government person on this programme


has said they have been cut to the bone and social care has been


starved over a longer period of time then just boosting reserves


recently. Don't get me wrong, there are challenges there but money is


going into those areas, 5.3 billion in the better care fund and we have


enabled local governments to raise its own money,


we have relaxed the rules around how much council tax can be raised


locally, provided it is spent on social care. But money is not the


only issue here, the way we are going to get all the money that is


available in the system to work best is if we enable people at local


level to put that money into prevention and early services. Not


piling it on to acute care. I take that point, but she is making a


serious accusation that the Government has misled the public,


have they? Know. So she is wrong? Absolutely. She says you only arrive


at the budget of ?10 billion in terms of a boost over five years by


shifting money from public health budget and health education and


training, and also including an extra year in the calculation, so


2015-2015 rather than just the term of this Parliament. That is


misleading, it is slight of hand? Know, this is funding the NHS' own


plan. There are other issues she raises about particular pressures


that health care faces, inflation and so forth on drug costs and


things like that, but this is about as supplying the money the NHS said


it needed. We were the only political party to make that


commitment at the general election and since then... That has been


contested, saying it is aimed misinterpretation by the


Conservative Government. East so you are saying money has not shifted


from any other budget and including the extra year is not misleading? I


do not follow what Sarah says when she says we are claiming that the


system is awash with cash. We have never claimed that, we note that


every year there are increasing pressures, an older population being


just one of them, so we know that there are serious challenges out


there but we have made this a priority, we have said to the NHS,


give us your plan, tell us what you need and we will meet that. In


addition to that, we have enabled local Government, on top of the


better care fund, which is going into social care, we have enabled it


to raise its own money. Well, she said she will have conversations


with Philip Hammond, the Treasury, about this, so that should be


interesting. Thank you. It's Halloween, so what ghostly


presence is supposed to be Is it a) Winston


Churchill's cigar smoke? B) The apparition of Ed Balls' mad


professor on Strictly? C) The wails of former


Prime Minister Viscount Goderich, known as 'the blubberer' for his


tendency to cry while in office. Or, d) the feline ghost of former


chief mouser Humphrey the cat. At the end of the show Penny


and Debbie, who has now arrived, Welfare reform was one


of the centrepieces of David Cameron's programme


when the Conservatives first came Today the Government has announced


new plans to help more disabled people into employment,


which they say will provide a more "targeted and personalised" way


to help more people find jobs. But with pressure on Ministers


to make work pay and reduce welfare Damian Green said earlier this month


that his vision was 'a welfare state fit for the world of work


in the 21st century'. So what issues are on the Work


and Pensions Secretary's desk? Work capability assessments,


the scheme that assesses claimants of disability benefits,


are set for an overhaul as part Statutory sick pay and GP fit notes


are also to be reviewed as part of an effort to help disabled people


back into work. But the Government still faces


criticism for failures by Concentrix, a private company


contracted to tackle benefit fraud that has been accused of incorrectly


withdrawing tax credits The flagship universal credit scheme


is up and running but is not forecast to be fully


delivered until 2022 - 11 years after it


was first announced. The Conservative MP Heidi Allen has


called for cuts to work incentives in the scheme made


by George Osborne to be reversed. And there is increased scrutiny


over the triple lock - the Government's pledge


that the state pension will always rise by wages, prices or 2.5%,


whichever is higher. Former Work and Pensions Secretary


Iain Duncan Smith told the Sunday Politics yesterday


that it was time to scrap the pledge and spend


the money elsewhere. Well, the Work and Pensions


Secretary, Damian Green, was talking earlier this morning


about those new plans to help more Well, the system isn't working well


enough for large numbers of people. We've got huge numbers of people,


unprecedentedly high numbers of people, in work,


about 80%, but just under 50% And what I want to do is to tap


into the huge amount of talent there is there,


and also most of those people do want to work, and so the system


needs to change so that We aspire to be a Government that


works for everyone and that includes all those people who want to work


but now can't, and that requires changes not just in Jobcentre Plus,


the things I'm directly responsible for, but also in the health service


and in the attitude of employers. Damian Green there. The Government


is reviewing the work capability assessment, by giving that are you


admitting it is not currently fit for purpose? I think it could be


improved dramatically both in terms of the process, currently we don't


make good use of all of the bits of information different parts of


Government has, we require people to feel into many forms and give the


State information, the same information, over and again, so


there is a lot that can still be done with the process. We have


obviously made some announcements on changing that, for example not


requiring people with degenerative conditions to go through retests,


but we think there are further more fundamental reforms that are


required, particularly splitting out the finance from any conditionality


that we place on an individual. Why has it taken so long? I am conscious


that I have been in the Department for 18 weeks and my in tray looks


very different to the one Iain Duncan Smith had to tackle when he


took over the department, so I think we are building on the reforms that


he has done. But it is a slow process. I think there were some


other things that were very pressing that he wanted to tackle. But we are


now in a position because of work done and other reforms that the work


capability assessment has undergone to take this fundamental look and I


think it is long overdue, but very important that we start the


consultation. And something that perhaps should have been done by


Iain Duncan Smith, having got as far as he did with the reforms? We are


continuing a programme of work that he set out. The reason this is so


important is that currently you have people with a health condition, or


who have a disability, who are parked with no support, so


ironically those that need the most help don't get it because we have


money attached to the conditions that we place on someone. That needs


to be reformed. We will talk about some of the incentives for people


with chronic illnesses or long-term conditions in a moment, but do you


welcome the fact that this review is happening, even if you think it is


long overdue, is it the right review? As you have just said,


actions speak louder than words. We have known for a number of years


that the work capability assessment is not working, it dehumanises


people, there is a piece of research at last year that shows it


exacerbates mental health conditions, increasing suicides.


There are all sorts of issues associated with not just the work


capability assessment but other aspects of it. Do you accept that


assessment that that is what it has done to people either disabled and


claiming benefit or other people with long-term conditions who have


to go through that work assessment, that it has caused them to become


more ill or in some places commit suicide? I think that leaving aside


the fundamental reforms we want to do to the policy, the delivery of


that policy is absolutely critical. I think even if you don't have


anxiety or depression or anything that could be exacerbated by such a


process, if you are having to go through an enormous amount of


bureaucracy and an unnecessary number of assessments, that is not


going to do anyone any good at all, so I think it is the process as well


as what we are trying to get out of that. So you admit it has not helped


in many people's cases in terms of trying to deal with what are


probably difficult things? The Government's statement include


references to helping people with long-term conditions but we have


heard to date on the BBC that people with long-term conditions such as


rheumatoid arthritis or Parkinson's, there is a of threat or incentive


hanging over those people that they are going to be reassessed despite


the fact that they have long-term conditions which would make it


difficult to go back to work, do you accept that? Part of the reason we


are doing the paper jointly with health is because we realise it is


not just employment support interventions that need to be


improved, it is also about people who need access to pain management,


physiotherapy, a whole raft of interventions, mental health support


being a particularly poignant one. That is why we are producing this


paper today, because we know that, to date, the systems have not worked


to assist those people. But let me be very clear that those people who


are not able to work will not be required to work. That will come as


some comfort to people, of course the definition of who is not able to


work will still be up for interpretation. Can I just put to


you first of all, you said yesterday the Government's approach was


ideological grip on with the sole purpose of targeting the most


vulnerable in society, what is your evidence for that? First of all let


me comment on what Penny has just said. We are in the context of an


NHS financial crisis. Not just a social care


crisis, we are talking about support for disabled people, some basic


support about helping them get out of bed in the morning. Where on


earth is that going to come from? This is completely pie in the sky,


we have employment support cuts for disabled people by more than a


third. Again, how is this about helping get disabled people into


work? It is all very well, as I said, they are fine words but


actions speak louder. So you will wait to see what the actions are,


but come back to the question, ideological driven with the purpose


of targeting the most vulnerable in society, do you stand by that


claimed that that is what the Government is doing? If we look at


what has happened over the last few years, nearly ?30 billion of cuts to


7 million people, another 1500 per year for people on EFA WRAG, these


are the most vulnerable people in society and we should not target


them. There is no evidence in terms of the approach the Government is


taking, this is about getting people off loaded, purely and simply. So


you are targeting the most vulnerable because the cuts show


that? I think that is very wrong and there is... You are right, it is


wrong! There is a mood to portray not just Government but also those


people providing those services in our job centres as people that don't


care, and this issue should be an issue... People have come to me and


said people are being targeted. Don't talk over each other, finish


your sentence. I had a constituent who worked in a job centre for 20


years and came to me and said claimants are being targeted, there


are targets about getting people off-loaded, sanctions through the


work capability assessment. If you have targets driven by


profit, surely you will get a situation where people are treated


as if they are in a sausage factory? It used to be the case that


Jobcentre staff was rewarded depending on how they were


performing. This was not a good way to monitor things. What we should be


measuring and what the thrust of the green paper is and the changes we


have made over the last 18 weeks is measuring individuals' distance


travelled. There will be some people whose goals are to get back into


full-time work. There will be some whose goal is meaningful activity,


and some will not be able to do any of that. We have to look at what


support that individual needs. By companies that the government has


employed to do these jobs have not had a good track record in dealing


with people on a human basis so far, if you believe all the stories. And


on that, Concentrix, the company contacted by the government to


tackle tax credit fraud which was accused of incorrectly withdrawing


benefits from hundreds of families, do you accept that ministers bear


responsibility for this by incentivising payment by results?


Well, the issues we have with tax credits are serious. And they are


unacceptable. I have had them in my own constituency. But we need to


ensure that whether it is in a contract, whether we performance


manage our staff, the right incentives are there. But those were


the wrong incentives. If you incentivised by payment by results,


you are going to get the sort of very sad stories that we hear is as


a result of going through the system. In the case of the tax


credits the problem is some of the IT systems they have been using. We


had a case the other day of someone who was accused of living in a shop,


because they were living above a shop. Does the government over those


people an apology? Absolutely. We have to accept that the policy is


one thing and even if we have the perfect policy, we have to ensure


that it is delivered in an excellent way. With regard to the Department


for Work and Pensions, our staff are subject matter experts with these


issues. They are not medical professionals. That is nonsense. We


have expert disability advisers. You have one specialist disability


adviser for every 600 people. How can you say you are committed? That


is why we are bringing out another 300. On the basis that Penny


Mordaunt says ministers should apologise for the tax credit


debacle, which meant hundreds of families had their tax credits


stopped, do you welcome that apology? I do. The statement of last


week was a very measured one. And now, when we look at what will be in


the contracts in future for work capability assessments, do you


accept Penny Mordaunt's word that it would be different and that it will


not be incentivising payment by results? Performance management is


key. Governments of all colours have not been good around contracting,


both in terms of the design and in terms of performance managing it. We


all need to get better. But I would like to know what we are going to do


about access to work. With 1.3 million disabled people who want to


work and only 35,000 able to get access to work to help them get back


to work, the figures don't match. I am interested in the specifics


around that. What about the comment Iain Duncan Smith made at the


weekend. More than half of the work and pensions budget goes on


benefits. He suggested it might be time to do away with the triple


lock. Do you agree? I don't. As a chairman of the all party group on


ageing, I would point out that the older you are, your cost of living


goes up. Is it affordable? I think it is and I think it is important


that we protect those benefits for pensioners. Do you agree?


Absolutely. What about the welfare cap on how much the government


spends overall on social security benefits? It is popular but it has


been breached every year since it has been brought in. Is there any


point continuing with it? It is important that we have welfare


spending under control. But we also need to ensure that the reach of our


programmes is as they need to be. Our green paper has not been


published yet, both but there will be a focus on that. We have to


ensure that not only the reach, but the quality of these programmes is


there. The cuts that George Osborne introduced to work incentives,


should they be reversed as Heidi Allen said? There are no plans to do


that. What I would take to Heidi and others who are concerned about that


is to look at the whole package for those individuals in terms of the


living wage and their personal tax contributions. According to the


Resolution Foundation, a single parent with a child under four


working full-time on the minimum wage would receive ?3600 less. How


does that help the families who are just managing, the very people


Theresa May says she wants to help? I met that organisation last week


and I would say that you have to look of a package of support we are


giving people in the round, which includes those other things. This is


outrageous. Universal credit was meant to be introduced to make work


pay and we supported it on that basis. On average, 2.5 million


families will be over ?2000 a year worse off. We now have a situation


where there are more families who are in work living in poverty than


there are workless families. This is a travesty and it has happened under


this government's what. Two thirds of the 4 million children living in


poverty are from working families. We must reverse these cuts if we are


to have a meaningful impact. After the false start


earlier this autumn, when Diane James lasted just 18 days


in the job, Ukip's search Our political correspondent


Alex Forsyth is keeping a close eye It seems that the nominees are


dropping like fliess yeah. When this contest was announced, which was


itself a surprise after Diane James did just 18 days in the job, there


was a flurry of people who thought they would throw their hat in the


ring for the next Ukip leader role. But as of today, when nominations


have closed, we know of only four left in the running. This morning,


the latest candidate to dropout was Raheem Kassam. He is a former aide


to Nigel Farage, one of the first to declare that he would stand for the


leadership this time. He only did his formal launch on Friday, a


couple of days ago. Over the weekend in the papers, a he got a lot of


coverage, so it came as a surprise when he decided to withdraw this


morning. He said in his statement that he thought the path to victory


was too narrow. Read into that that he thinks senior figures in the


party are getting behind Paul Nuttall and so there was little


chance of him winning. He also cited some anger at the media, saying


journalists have turned up at his parents' home, and also fundraising.


It was thought that the multimillionaire backer Arron Banks


was behind Raheem Kassam, but he said in a statement this morning


that they only had enough money to run a digital campaign based on


Westminster. He didn't think that would be effective, so that was part


of the reason he pulled out. I have spoken to Mr Kassam and he said he


did still have the support of Arron Banks, but he did not want to take a


lot of donations to come second, so he stood down. We will get the final


list of candidates this afternoon and the hustings start tomorrow. Did


he also imply that the system had been rigged? He said he had asked


questions over the weekend over the integrity of the process, and he was


not convinced by it. He does not go so far as to say the process has


been rigged, but he implies that the weight of the party machine is


getting behind Paul Nuttall, who some see as the frontrunner and the


one potential unity candidate who can lead Ukip out of the mess they


have been in for the past year. So I think Raheem Kassam's implication is


that he didn't think he could win against the weight of the party


machine and the senior figures who want Paul Nuttall to succeed. That


is another reason he decided to pull out. So we are left with four names


in the frame, but no final confirmation from Ukip yet as to the


short list. The new leader is expected to be announced by the end


of the month. We've been joined by one


of the four remaining candidates to be Ukip leader,


Peter Whittle, who is a member You must be pleased that Raheem


Kassam has withdrawn. I am not particularly pleased, because I have


known him for a long time and he is an exceptionally talented guy and a


very individual guy. And what the leadership contests are showing this


time is that this is the contest we should have been having all along.


There are people of real merit. I would want as many people as


possible to be on show. He is backing you, so you must be pleased.


It is kind of him to back me. If you look at the people standing now,


they are extremely talented people. That is what people have to know


about our party. Do you have a chance of winning against Paul


Nuttall and Suzanne Evans? Well, you don't enter these things with a


counsel of despair. You have to resist questions like that. The fact


is, I love this party. I have been in it for four years. I have been


culture spokesman for three. This year, we had a real breakthrough and


got two assembly members on to the London Assembly. People said we


would never do that in London. But the party has gone through a series


of convulsions, losing a leader after 18 days, which is careless to


say the least. But Mr Kassam said he would be the Farage-ist candidate.


Is that the mantle you are now going to assume? I have always been a


supporter of Nigel. There is no revisionism going on there. Nigel is


a towering figure. Isn't that why the party is having the problems it


is, because he has gone? It was always going to be tough picking a


new leader, because he is the most influential politician we have had


in two generations. And no one will go back on his legacy. But we are


now in a position where we can go onto a brilliant act two. Whatever


that might be. It is very simple. Our first goal was the referendum.


Our next goal will be to replace Labour as the real opposition in


this country. What do you say to that, Debbie Abrahams? I would


prefer to know more about your policies. Other than leaving Europe,


I am not clear on what Ukip stands for, particularly on the NHS, which


Paul Nuttall has slated. No. The fact is with Ukip, everyone knows


what we stand for, which is unusual in politics these days. Then it is


interesting that there are divisions within your party. Mr Kassam says he


is worried about the integrity of the process and the leadership


contest. Has he got a point? That is not a picture I recognise. It has


all been done very fairly and professionally. So he is wrong about


that? It is not a picture I recognise. The whole progress of the


leadership campaign has been very smooth this time, because we know


what is at stake and we want this party to be a success because there


are people, particularly in the Midlands and the north... It is not


just a question of being opportunist, but we have a duty to


speak for those people. That is why I want us to be the official


opposition in years to come. 2020 is the big star for that.


You could say now the referendum has happened, there is no need for Ukip


whatsoever and Labour could start to claw back some of the support they


lost to Ukip. No chance of this. In terms of putting forward your


individual vision for the party, do you think Ukip is ready to become


the first UK wide political party with a gay leader? Of course, I was


the only gay candidate in the mayoral race, for example. Not bad


going for a supposedly homophobic party! My fellow Assembly Member is


a black eye, we are the most diverse group on the London assembly! And


this is despite claims of homophobia, have you experienced


that? None at all. All of these things are very, very old charges,


really. The fact is, what we have now in Britain are people who are


not spoken for, they do not trust the Tories and they are quite right


not to trust the Tories, and in fact I think there is no chance, whatever


this speech is that Theresa May makes, that they will go over to the


Tories, and Labour now look down on them and treat them with contempt.


Although there have been defections from Ukip to the Tories since the


referendum, as you know. Including Steven Woolfe and certainly thought


about it, I know he's not now running in the contest. Are you


going to stay to the very end of this competition? We are all in it


to win it. So you will not be dropping out? I think the question


is, people will see, looking at our hustings, which are happening


tomorrow in London and then in Wales, two more next week, they will


feed the breadth of vision and talent that there is in this party.


Peter Whittle, thank you. How should the UK control


immigration once we've left the EU? The official Vote Leave campaign


argued for an Australian-style points-based system -


but that's been ruled Others have suggested a new regime


of work permits. My next guest has produced his own


plan, which could include continuing freedom of movement for some


categories of worker. Here's Sunder Katwala,


director of the non-partisan think Sometimes, you sit down


in a restaurant, starving hungry, but they've got nothing that


sounds very appetising. When it comes to Brexit, the fixed


menu seems very narrow indeed. Most of us would like a good trade


deal with Europe for British business, but that always comes


served with a liberal helping of free movement, which isn't


to everyone's taste. And it seems the only alternative


is thin gruel, the hardest, The first rule is, don't


be rude to the waiter. But you also need an idea


of what you want the kitchen If we can't reach a deal


by the time the Article 50 clock runs out in 2019,


that will count as a The logical outcome for immigration


is that we would then apply the same rules for Europeans


as we do for outside the EU. But we could make Europe a much more


attractive offer than that, one that gives us the control over


immigration that the public want, but is appealing enough to the EU


that we can still get A new system could still offer


preferential treatment Above a certain skill


level, we could keep free People don't want fewer engineers


or scientists to come. We also need some low-skilled


migration too, to pick fruit But here, the public do


want to control the scale So let's have quotas for low-skilled


work based on what our economy needs, and offer those places


to Europeans first as part Britain would get control over


the pace of migration, but it's also an attractive offer


to the EU and its workers too, certainly more so than if we don't


get any deal at all. And if Europe says "non",


we can always try another restaurant and offer a similar


trade and migration deal with North American,


Australian, Indian But we all know that Europe's got


great food, so let's see what the Brussels


chefs say first. Penny, Cuba on the Vote Leave side


in the referendum campaign. We are going to continue to need skilled


and unskilled Labour in the British economy after we finally leave the


EU so, in your mind, what a quota for unskilled workers make sense?


I'm not going to, as I said earlier, showed the Government's hand in


terms of what it is going to be negotiating gone, but what I do


think is important is that we get back full control. It was one of the


key issues in the referendum campaign, and they tweaked something


that quite a lot of politicians didn't figure out which was that


unless you can control immigration you cannot govern properly or


planned services. Control is one thing, control on immigration, to be


able to choose the number and the sorts of migrant workers you would


like he is not the same as just bringing down the numbers


dramatically, the two are not mutually exclusive, so would you at


least consider the idea of a quota for a number of unskilled workers to


do some of the jobs that British workers have not come up until now,


wanted to do? I think a range of issues will be looked at, the only


thing that has been ruled out if the points system approach that


Australia have taken. But this is a key issue in terms of the


negotiations, and the Government isn't going to reveal its hand. That


really was the nub of the referendum result, the message that came


through loud and clear was, we want to do something about immigration. I


think what we know is the public have lost confidence in how the


Government has been handling immigration in this country in the


last ten or 15 years, there were not the right preparations for the scale


of immigration we have had and we have that promises to cut levels


that have not been possible so people want especially some control


over the scale and pace of unskilled immigration while at the


same time they are positive about the contribution immigration can


make to this country if it is better managed and controlled. You talk


about quotas, how big would that be for unskilled workers? Our proposal


is that we would have skilled free movement at levels people were happy


about and would decide on an annual basis, something like the budget,


talk to the health service, employers, people worried about the


impact on communities, the Home Secretary comes to the house, set


the quota and we agree what it is. Under the system Europeans would


have access to the low skilled work before other people did if we made


the deal with Europe. But it would be just another arbitrary number in


the way the Government has set in the last Parliament and this


Parliament and number to bring down net migration to tens of thousands,


which it has consistently failed to do? Something went wrong with that


target, which was not possible to meet, which was that the number came


first as a sound bite and people scrambled around for policies to


meet it and there were none to meet it while we were in the EU. If we


have a process on, what other pressures on migration that create


reductions, what are the needs for migration, how do we get the


balance, you can set the number according to the feeling on the


ground in economic sectors, in local areas, about how to match the


pressures and gains of immigration, set the number with worked out


policy. What about Labour's policy? Am I right in thinking there is not


a policy in terms of setting any numbers on net migration or


immigration? What we want to do is have a national conversation about


immigration and what that means. We have had a national conversation! We


had a general election in 2015 and then a referendum debate. The


general election covered a host of things and the only question as I


understand in the referendum was, do you want to be in Europe or out?


There was a really complex result in terms of our understanding of the


result and we need to have a more detailed understanding of what that


means. As has been pointed out already, our care service, one in


five care workers come from overseas, also our NHS staff, we


would collapse without those skilled workers but also the less skilled.


So you don't want to control the numbers in any way? I said we need


to have a national conversation. But that does not answer the question,


do you or don't you want to control the numbers? What we want, we need


to recognise what migration does and how it supports and enables our


economy, so we know there is an net benefit... People rejected that if


you interpret the referendum result in that way? What was the question?


They said they wanted control... No, they didn't, they said they wanted


to be out of Europe and it is complex to understand why they


wanted to leave, even in areas where there is no migration, people voted


to leave. There are parts of the country where there were very low


levels of immigration and they still voted to leave. I think there were


many reasons why people voted to leave, for some it was about


sovereignty, all sorts of other issues, but I think we are kidding


ourselves if we don't accept that immigration was a major part. Excuse


me for bringing this back to the Green paper today, there is an


element of the Green paper that looks at this, one thing I am


conscious of his opportunities to work overseas that disabled people


have, even work experience, quite often they are not able to take them


up because our support is not flexible enough to do that, so there


is a lot we can do in this space for our own citizens. Do you think


voters that were concerned with immigration are wrong? No, I


understand, area such as Lincolnshire where there has been a


real influx of migrants to support our agricultural industry, pressures


have been put on local services. At the same time, those local services


have been cut by this Government. Do you think British workers will get


out into the field and help the seasonal fruit picking instead? I


think we need to look at what, different areas need different


things, so for example the Government cut the migrant fund and


that needs to be reintroduced, we also need to make sure employment


agencies don't undercut when they recruit from abroad, undercutting


local Labour. There is evidence in terms of how successfully we can


integrate communities into different areas, and that hasn't happened


either. Some of the Labour MPs in the North have a very different view


on immigration and they do think that something should be done about


the numbers, even Keir Starmer in Shadow Cabinet said something has to


be done about immigration. Is he wrong? No, he's not, he said


something has to be done about immigration... He meant bringing


down the numbers. It is about how we make sure the economy is supported


by migration but also make sure communities are not put under


pressure and there are ways that we can do that which has not happened


unfortunately in the last few years. How confident are you that both


parties but particularly the Government will take on all consider


the sort of scheme you have put forward? I think there is potential


pragmatic consensus here, both sides have said something important about


control on the pace and scale of immigration, openness to the


immigration that allows us to get a good deal, so we think a good deal


could converge around this proposal. We have heard a lot about red lines


on deals people don't want, if we are going to have a sharper debate


we have got to hear ideas about practical proposals that we could


put on the table and that would be attractive to a consensus in Britain


and that I think is a better deal for Europe than we will get it we


have a failure on both sides and no deal at all. Are you working closely


with ministers? We will speak to ministers on all sides, there are


pragmatic voices will remain that will have to come up with a real


policy that works for the 52% and the 48%. When do you think the Prime


Minister will be able to deliver on her pledge for net migration in the


tens of thousands? Ultimately I think that will happen after we


leave the EU. So in 2019? We will have to see what system is put in


place and precisely what I think needs to happen is the focus on what


the economy needs, what skills we need, how many people we need, and


that will determine the numbers, that it will... But it will be after


the EU that we will get back for control? Thank you.


Now let's have a look at what else is coming up this week.


The Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer is hoping to ask


an urgent question in the Commons this afternoon about


The Japanese car giant announced last Thursday that they would build


two new models at their Sunderland factory after receiving "assurances"


Labour MP Keith Vaz could have his entry onto the Justice Committee


The Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen will try and trigger a Commons vote


Keith Vaz resigned as chairman of the Home Affairs Committee last


month after newspaper allegations that he had paid


On Wednesday, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will face


As always, we'll broadcast the session in full here


Later that day, around 70 Labour MPs will launch a centre-left group


The MPs behind it say their aim is to help the party produce


On Thursday, the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney


will deliver the quarterly inflation report.


That's the Bank's verdict on how the British economy is performing.


It's thought that Mark Carney could use the opportunity to end


speculation about whether he will continue in the job


Joining me from outside on College Green are the deputy


political editor Jason Groves and Martha Gill, who writes


Jason Groves, what do you think Mark Carney will do? I think he will


stay. He is telling friends he wants to stay and although we understand


that he has personal reasons for possibly wanting to return to


Canada, he is in a job that pays him a lot of money and he says he wants


to see Brexit through. In many ways, he is a lucky man to be able to make


his own decision. There are quite a few in government who would be happy


to see the back of him. But at this moment, there is a feeling that it


might spook the markets for him to go. I think he will stay. Martha,


how much fuss will there be from the Tory MPs who have felt Mark Carney


overstepped the mark in the EU referendum? Will they make a fuss if


he stays? Probably, but if he goes, they will make even more fuss. They


will use it as an opportunity to jump on these accusations that he


torched the economy down and made incorrect calls before Brexit. If he


went, it would certainly cause uncertainty in the markets, adding


to the stress caused by Brexit. Let's talk about Nissan and those


assurances. A letter was enough to persuade Nissan to continue


investing in the north-east. What was promised, do you think? We got a


good outline of what was promised from Greg Clark yesterday. There


were three areas where the government offered the kind of


grants you might expect a government to offer any big business,


investing, training and research. Then there was this extra area where


the real political debate is now, in that he has offered them an


assurance that they can continue trading without tariffs and without


bureaucratic impediments. Nobody quite knows what that means. We


don't know who is applies to. Interestingly, the letter doesn't


say what happens if the government can't deliver that. At the moment,


they can't guarantee it. Negotiations with Brussels haven't


even started, and we are already making promises about the outcome.


Presumably, if that cannot be upheld, the idea of no tariffs being


put on car-makers like Nissan, there would have to be compensation which


would be taxpayer funded. That is the key question. That is what I


suspect Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, will be grilling


Greg Clark on today. I suspect he will also be interested in whether


there are sector by sector deals, because Greg Clark was only talking


about the car industry yesterday. It would be extraordinary for the


government to monitor deals sector by sector. I suspect Keir Starmer


will want to find out whether all of Britain's other key industries will


get the same kind of deals that the car industry seems to be getting. We


will be listening to Business Secretary Greg Clark when he talks


about these things. Let's move onto Keith Vaz, the Labour MP currently


under investigation. This issue has been raised by Andrew Bridge, the


Conservative MP, because Keith Vaz wants to take his place on the


Justice committee. Is he going to get anywhere with his opposition?


Well, Andrew tells me he has secured a vote in the Commons tonight. We


will have to see what the numbers are. It is an unusual situation. For


a lot of members of the public, they will be surprised that a man in


Keith Vaz's position is going for a seat on the Justice committee at


this time when he has all this hanging over him. He has had to step


down from the home affairs committee. I suspect if he had been


on the Justice committee, he would have had to step back from that. It


is extraordinary that he is going for this. My gut feeling is that he


will get on. But we will have to wait and see. Martha Gill, what do


you think will happen? I agree. These things tend to go through


smoothly. It would be unusual for it to be blocked at this stage, but it


is also unusual for somebody involved in ongoing investigations


like Keith Vaz to get onto such a prestigious select committee. We


will see. Thank you both very much. As we've just been discussing,


Labour have secured what's known as an "urgent question" in the House


of Commons this afternoon to discuss the detail


of assurances given to Nissan by the Business Secretary Greg


Clark, which led to the car manufacturer committing to continue


production of its cars It's of no interest for there


to be tariff barriers to the Continent and vice versa,


so I said that our objective would be to ensure that we have


continued access to the markets without tariffs and without


bureaucratic impediments. And that is how we will approach


those negotiations. Should he just publish the letter? I


don't think so, but he has been open about the discussions he has had


with Nissan and I am sure he will say more in the meeting later today.


This is quite normal, and it would be weird if a business didn't use


Brexit as a way of furthering its own aims. Unsuccessfully in the case


of Nissan. Other car-makers will be saying, are we going to get the same


deal? We want to reassure any company that is periodically


reviewing staying in the UK or relocating that it is best investing


here. Of course, but what has been dangled in front of Nissan to make


them stay? Reports have said they were considering leaving, so what


did the government promise and will the taxpayer have to pay? This is


really about ensuring that business has confidence in this government.


Is this a good idea, to do sector by sector deals, where you could have


free trade agreements for the car industry, for example, to ensure


that companies like Nissan stay put? We want to see the detail of that.


But is it a good idea? I am not sure, because I have not seen the


detail. By publishing the letter, we get an opportunity to analyse


whether it was a good idea or not. Well, he has said quite a lot. He


said there would not be tariffs placed on goods. Is that an


assurance enough for you? There was an interview last night from the


boss of Nissan which was implying something slightly different. Let's


take Greg Clark at his word that there would not be any tariffs that


would be put on car manufacturers when exporting. Would that be a good


deal? Obviously, we want to make sure that companies in the UK can


trade as freely as possible with Europe. But we need to see the


detail. If Nissan are now getting a sweetener through the taxpayer, why


couldn't we provide it to another business? This sweetener might be


that in the end, if we can't keep that assurance of error free trade,


we will compensate you. Would that be all right for the government said


taxpayers will fund compensation if we cannot keep our promise of tariff


free trade? Greg Clark has been quite straightforward in his


interview yesterday. We don't know about that. Well, he did say there


was not money dangled in order to secure them remaining in the UK. As


you would expect from someone who supported the Leave camp, I think


common sense will prevail. I think businesses in Europe will want to


trade with us as we do with them. And some of the obstacles that are


being floated will not come to pass. Let's see what happens.


So, ever wanted to keep track of how your MP has been


Whether they toe the party line, or are a serial rebel?


It's all information that's recorded, but now, thanks


to a new app launched by Parliament called Commons Vote,


you can get hold of it almost immediately


Ellie has been looking at how it all works.


It's what happens when the Speaker needs MPs


And this bell rings to let everyone know.


If I wanted to vote against whatever was being proposed, I would get up


out of the chamber and head to the no lobby, which is that way.


If I wanted to vote in favour, I'd go that way to the ayes.


Once a vote or division is called, MPs have eight minutes


to get from the chamber or wherever they are.


Then I would get to the desks here and work out which queue


But things recently have changed, so what's different?


Until earlier this year, members' names were recorded


on pen and paper and when they came through,


a clerk recorded their name with a marker pen.


Now we've changed to a system of recording names by tablet device,


we have the data in a digital format.


So it's quite a traditional process, with a modern twist.


Everything else has stayed the same as for many decades.


Members still walk through the lobbies,


but the way we record votes has changed.


And that's useful for the clever technical people, who've come up


So we have a nice copy of Hansard, how it was traditionally recorded.


We've got a list of all the votes and we can scroll through them,


have a look at what has gone on in the past.


And we can see that there were 195 ayes and 280 noes.


If you choose the noes, you can get a list of all those


We can also look at all the members, so you can scroll through


or search for their name, and we can choose a member.


If we choose Luciana Berger, we can see how she has voted


in every division, and you get the count of the division as well,


so you can quickly see what side she was on.


Everything that goes on in parliament will continue


It just means you can get the information on the move.


I can see how that will help us journalists. Will you get more


hassle from your constituency and voters if they think you haven't


voted the way you should? I think anything that helps voters to know


what is going on and about the process is a good thing. It would


just mean they get it a little quicker than they have in the past.


Is this part of the attempt at modernisation processes in the


Commons? About time. I think it will be great. Constituents want to know


the information. I can get it quicker. I like the idea of them


wandering around with their apps. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. B) Ed Balls' mad


professor on Strictly? C) The wails of former


Prime Minister Viscount Goderich - known as the "Blubberer"


for his tendency to cry while in office, or d) The feline


ghost of former chief mouser, So Debbie and Penny,


what's the correct answer? I am going to go for the cigar


smoker. I will go for the cigar smoke as well. You are both right,


although I think we may have shown the picture too early! It is the


cigar smoke, not Ed Balls. Thanks, Penny, Debbie


and all my guests. The One O'Clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow


with all the big political to commemorate the Africans


who were here.


Download Subtitles