02/11/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



In September, scandal-hit Labour MP Keith Vaz judged himself "not fit"


But now he's been appointed to another Commons


How will Ireland - on both sides of the border -


The Irish government is hosting all-Ireland talks today


Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be facing each other over


the despatch box at Prime Minister's Questions.


We'll bring you all the action live at midday.


Should the England, Scotland and Wales football teams defy Fifa


and wear poppies during next week's World Cup qualifiers?


All that in the next hour and a half of the very finest public


And with us for the whole of the programme today are two


politicians who as far as we know have never wrestled


The Northern Ireland Secretary, James Brokenshire, and the Shadow


First today though, let's talk about Keith Vaz.


The Labour MP has seen off an attempt by Tory MPs


to prevent him getting a seat on a Commons committee.


Conservative Andrew Bridgen tried to block his appointment


to the Justice Committee following newspaper claims that


Mr Vaz paid for the services of two male sex workers.


But his attempt was rejected in a Commons vote by 203 to 7.


Mr Vaz quit as chairman of the influential Home Affairs


Andrew Bridgen joins us now from Central Lobby.


Why did you tried to block Keith Vaz's appointment to do justice


select committee? Lacen 's month he resigned from the home affairs


select committee. He didn't think he was a fit and proper person to


remain on back committee. There are issues around this investigation and


those matters are not resolved. Yet this month, Keith Vaz wings he a


person who is fit and proper to be on the justice select committee.


This actually brings the whole of our into disrepute. The Metropolitan


Police are still assessing if any criminal offences were committed by


Keith Vaz, so there isn't an investigation as such, going on. Why


is this the appropriate forum for you to raise these matters? It is


not the arena for bringing up grievances you may have? The


procedure was, although it is a Labour nomination for the committee,


it has to be approved by the whole house, it is a committee of the


whole house. I had the opportunity to raise my concerns and I am


disappointed with the results. But it has my concerns and the concerns


of many members on the record and if it hadn't been for government


whipping, it would have been a better result. Many felt it was


anti-Parliamentary that you are trying to subvert parliamentary


traditions instead of airing your concerns in an appropriate manner.


Not at all, these parliamentary traditions, the voting on the


chairman of a select committee, this has only been a convention for the


last few years. At the end of the day we are talking about the


reputation of Parliament. I think people in the country will be


bemused that anyone would the dark cloud hanging over them, that Keith


Vaz has, but possibly, with a police investigation possibly pending, a


full Parliamentary standards investigation going to be carried


out if the police don't investigate criminally, but someone could be


nominated and get onto the justice committee at this time. But you


wouldn't have a problem if Labour MPs tried to block nominations to


select committee, even if there was a dark cloud, although no


allegations have been proven at this point? If someone has genuine


concerns about the suitability of someone to be in a position of much


influence, of great influence in this Parliament, it is quite right,


it is the duty of other members to raise these concerns. That was the


format I had to do it. Raising concerns is one thing, but you


wouldn't have a problem with Labour MPs blocking conservative MPs


applying for the same appointments? As long as they were legitimate


concerns. The ones who voted him on soon the select committee where your


fellow Conservative MPs. They could be a victim of fortune of Keith


Vaz's future activities. I worry whether colleagues may live to


regret that. Andrew Bridgen, thank you.


Why did you vote for Keith Vaz to be on the justice committee of all


committees? It comes down to the principle on the independence of


select committees and individual parties selecting who they should


have. The Labour Party put forward Kate Green and Keith Vaz to serve on


the justice committee. In the sense of the proprieties of Parliament of


the robustness of select committees, it is the Labour Party to do that.


There is the sense of resident, if other parties then somehow are able


to undo that, then it can cut across the whole scrutiny process. That is


the Parliamentary situation. Please explain to our viewers why it was


writer of Keith Vaz to resign from the home affairs select committee,


but now be appointed to the justice select committee? Ultimately, it is


a decision for the Labour Party. Did you vote with a heavy heart for Mr


Vaz? I voted in support of the process we have on individual


parties being able to nominate to serve on select committees. It is a


matter who the other side nominates, you would sheep like go through the


lobby in favour? It is rather, we do have a principle of select


committees being robust, being able to hold people like myself to


account and Keith Vaz did that on a number of occasions in some of my


previous roles. If we believe in the ability for parties to nominate, to


nominate their own people and each party has its own process to do so.


Why did Labour nominate him? We had two vacancies on the committee and


two MPs put themselves forward. There was no election and they went


on to the committee. Couldn't you have chosen somebody else? Why is it


appropriate for Keith Vaz to be on the justice committee, of all


committees, when it was inappropriate for him to stay on the


home affairs committee? It is a decision for Keith. He was chair of


the home affairs select committee and he stood down as chair. It is a


nicety, but he is a member of the justice select committee, he is not


sharing it. It is a decision for Keith to make himself as to whether


he thought he should be. It is like Pontius Pilate act from both of you,


washing your hands, down to Keith Vaz, it is just process. People


watching will wonder how a man, with a chequered history on many matters,


under a possible police investigation and standards


investigation is sitting on the justice committee! I have some


sympathy with that view. Had I been Keith, I don't think I would have


put myself forward for that position. But the fact is, you can't


pick and choose. He is an elected MP, there to represent his


constituents and needs to play a role in Parliament. Unless there are


findings against him which means he shouldn't be in this position, we


should let him make the decision. Did you vote for him? I didn't take


part in the vote, I was trying to stop a constituent being deported.


Most of the people who voted for Keith Vaz were Tories. Only 38


Labour MPs voted for Keith Vaz. Why? You have to ask them. They couldn't


all have been looking after their constituents at the same time. They


could have been. I can only give you my view cannot speak for my


colleagues. As a minister has said, the system operates, the opposition


party gets to nominate who will sit on these select committees, which


are meant to be operated in a way, independent from government and


opposition. They meant to be inquisitorial and so on. Yet only 38


Labour MPs could vote for Keith Vaz. It tells us something. I am not sure


what, but it says something? You can impute into what that may mean. I


haven't spoken to the 38 people who did support it and you would have to


ask them why they did and others why they didn't. How come he got in with


the Tory vote. They all turned up, including 11 ministers. Most of the


203 who voted were Tories and Labour couldn't be bothered. Ultimately,


there was a division that was called. I voted as others did, in


support of the independence of committees, the independence of


individual parties being able to do that. Seven voted against. It was a


cross-section from across Parliament who voted in support of that


principle. We will leave that there, I think we have got as far as we can


combat for the moment. Brexit is one of the biggest


challenges facing the Irish government with implications


for Ireland north and south. Today, the Irish government


is hosting cross-border talks with politicians, business


representatives and interest groups. The issue of the Irish border


will top the agenda, along with discussions about trade


and the peace process. The border is the only land


boundary between the UK In 1922, the Irish Free State


was established, and with it, a Common Travel Area


between the UK and Ireland. This meant nationals of both


countries could travel freely In 1973, both the UK and Ireland


became members of the EU. Since both countries


joined on the same day, the border has never been one


between a member and a non-member. Now June's Brexit vote


has put the future of Both the UK and Irish governments


say they want to keep But after Brexit the border


between north and south will become The EU's Brexit Taskforce said


the whole EU might need to sign off on how the UK and Ireland plan


to police it. A harder border is likely to cause


significant disruption and could recall the difficult


decades of the Troubles. An alternative could be


a border between Ireland and mainland Britain -


but that would mean checks on people travelling between different parts


of the UK. And I'm joined now from Dublin


by Ireland correspondent Chris Page. Welcome to the daily politics. What


has been happening at the conference? The Irish government


regard this as a very important day. At this hospital, grand setting for


what they are calling an all island 's civil dialogue. Note that the EU


state will be affected more by Brexit than the Republic of Ireland.


End Kenny has said it is the biggest social and economic challenge facing


island in the last 50 years. The government says they have the widest


conversation about Brexit with North and South. 300 people are attending


this conference, trade unionists, business representatives and other


groups and they are focusing on cross-border trade, ?1 billion worth


of goods cross the Irish Sea every week. Also, the peace process and


the implications for the border are very high on the government's list


of priorities. Notable absentees are the Unionist parties from Northern


Ireland. They decided not to come to this event. That undermines the idea


of it being the broadest conversation with as many parties,


or interested parties as possible. The DUP leader, Arlene Foster has


discussed it as a grandstanding exercise, making her case very


clear. But what has been the reaction to that? People have said


they are disappointed unionists have not come. Whenever the Democratic


Unionist party had their conference, Arlene Foster hardened her rhetoric


on this and said it was an exercise in grandstanding. The Unionists have


said they have enough ways to engage with Dublin and people here,


including ministers in the Irish government are putting the emphasis


on another meeting taking place later this month, the meeting of the


North, South ministerial. That would allow ministers from storm onto sand


Dublin to confer regularly on matters which are important to them.


There will be one of those Summit in Northern Ireland later this month


and it will very much focus on Brexit. That is being pointed to by


many here as being the next key meeting in this process. Everyone is


trying to put a very positive accents of what is happening, saying


it will be an important and useful exercise in forming the Irish


government's progression in the Brexit talks.


You are the Secretary of State 's four Northern Ireland. Why are you


not at these talks? It is about forming preparations for discussions


around Brexit. We do meet bilaterally with the Irish


government on a regular basis. There are other things which are put into


place. We have the British- Irish Council which brings together


ourselves with the Irish government, with the Executive and other


devolved Administration 's. The Irish government have called this a


meeting of all Ireland. They say there is real concern in Dublin


about the implications of Brexit for the whole island and the


relationship of Ireland, the South with the Norse and with the UK. --


north. Reassurances have been given in a number of ways. I have had


meetings with the Irish Foreign Minister and we have had some good


and positive exchanges. It is unique relationship we have. The Irish


government has arranged today's event to form their approach to this


full stop that does not mean there are not other discussions that will


take place. The Northern Irish Council are very keen. There are


always discussions. The Irish government regards this as


important. Charles Flanagan joins us now from


the talks in Dublin. Thank you for joining us. There are a number of


concerns. We have four minutes. Perhaps we could go through some of


the most important concerns you have about Britain's departure from the


EU. What is your worry with the border? This is a very important


engagement when we have an opportunity of listening, not only


to political leaders, but also to business leaders and


representatives, civic society. There are 6 million people on the


island of Ireland, 4.5 million in southern Ireland. The issue of the


future relationship between the UK and the European Union is of course


of vital importance to us strategically in terms of our


economy. We do not have much time. Forgive me. What I am trying to get


at, since we have the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here,


what are your concerns? What is your main concern about what happens to


the border? The main concern is that our priorities will not be taken


into consideration. Our priorities are clear. The preservation of the


Common travel arrangement which has been in place since 1926. Secondly,


that the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement remains intact


and fully honoured. That is where the issue of the border is one of


immense importance. Having regard to the fact we now have an invisible


border between North and South where in excess of 30,000 people across


the border every day to work, to school, to college, to farm. Any


attempt to reintroduce what might be described as a heavily fortified


border or a hard border is certainly going to meditate against what has


been a hugely positive and constructive relationship North and


South since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. Hitting


aside a military 's border, which may or may not happen, if the United


Kingdom leaves and we are no longer in the single market and we are no


longer in the customs union, does it follow in your view that there would


have to be customs on the border between North and South? What


follows if that is the case, and it is not clear that with either case,


but what would follow would be a very serious situation which would


require a special arrangement on the matter of the island of Ireland. We


don't really know at this stage what the ask of the UK Government will


be. Our priorities are clear. We are listening to colleagues on the


island of Ireland today. We welcome those who have joined us from


Northern Ireland. We want to know what the priorities of the British


government will be and of course the priorities of the Northern


Executive. We welcome the fact that Theresa May has indicated that


Article 15 Otis will be served at the latest at the end of next March.


-- the Article 50 notice. What will follow a BAC arrears round of


negotiations. In order to prepare fully, I would be obliged to hear


from my colleagues across the water as to what exactly the ask would be.


We are preparing this morning and over the next few months a range of


contingencies from the softest of soft Brexit to the hardest. This is


really going to be impacting not only on our economy but also on


society. Thank you for joining us this morning from the all Ireland


talks taking place. James, let me come to you. The Common travel area


which since the 1920s, has allowed British citizens to go to Ireland


and Irish citizens to come here into work, travel, holiday in an


untroubled way, are you in a position to guarantee that


continuation after Brexit? We have the negotiations still to come. We


know that is the case. What I can say clearly and, as Charlie has


indicated, there is a strong will between the Irish government and


ourselves to see the Common travel area will be respected. Its


existence has been recognised in treaties. There needs to be a clear


understanding among EU states of the significance of the Common travel


area and the significance of border issues in connection with the


politics of Northern Ireland and the issues. If Dublin wants it and you


would want it to continue, what would stop it? Ultimately, because


it is part of the overall negotiation. It existed before we


joined the EU. You are right in making that clear point. It did


exist before we joined be you and therefore that shares will that the


Irish government and ourselves would have going into that negotiation,


recognising that Ireland would remain in the European Union but it


will not be part of the Schengen zone. The Irish government has no


intent... They did not join partly because of the common travel area in


the first place. They are not wanting to do that. As of this


morning right you cannot guarantee the continuation of the common


travel arrangement between Britain and Ireland. It is part of the


negotiations, you tell us? It is part of what we need to secure from


the outcome of the negotiations. That is the key thing. It is an


essential point. Let me ask you something out. If we are outside the


single market and the customs union, and there may be tariffs on some


things between us and be you, you would have to put customs posts up


on the border, wouldn't you? It is important that I do not hypothesise.


We, as the Government, are in the process of analysing all of these


issues. Analysing and considering whether we should remain in the


customs union or not. So, there could be customs posts. What I do


need to be clear on this is that we are looking at the evidence, looking


at ways in which you can approach this. There are no binary issues.


The Prime Minister has said it this in relation to the customs union. It


is how we are working with the Irish government on how we can achieve


that outcome, which is not seeing a return to the borders of the past. A


brief thought from you on this. There is a lot of uncertainty in


Northern Ireland and the Republic about what Brexit means. I am not


sure people will be reassured in any way by what they have just heard. We


haven't heard anything. We do not know what the plan is. Not in


Northern Ireland and Ireland and we do not know what the plan is for the


UK. OK. Let's move on. Now, a certain Canadian banker


is reported to have been a bit upset by Theresa May's criticism


in her conference speech of the "international elites" -


a group she said she was According to The Times newspaper,


the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, took these


comments rather personally. In fact, the paper suggests it may


even have had something to do with his decision to quit his post


two years early, in 2019, and return A bit of an over-reaction you might


think, or as one member of the Cameron Government apparently


put it "for a supposed Master of the Universe,


he has a very thin skin". Well, nobody could accuse us


here at the Daily Politics of being either part


of an international elite or thin skinned but we do control something


even the Masters of the Universe can't influence - the supply


of Daily Politics mugs. Diminishing though, the supply. It


is. That is because the pound is slumped.


To be in with a chance of getting your hands on a member


of the crockery elite, just tell us when this happened.


MUSIC: "There Must Be An Angel" by Eurythmics


I went into this agreement because I was not prepared


to tolerate a situation of continuing violence.


# Boy, you've got to prove your love to me


Handsworth riots is already expected to run into several million pounds.


When the cameras first went in this afternoon,


the place was absolutely jam-packed with peers.


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address - that's


Entries must arrive by 12:30pm today, and you can


see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year


And no, I don't know why they have to be in by 12:30 p.m..


And that can mean only one thing, yes, Prime Minister's


What is likely to come up today? As we see that crisp and beautiful


autumn morning, it is not long before the Autumn Statement. We are


starting to see noises off we traditionally see at this time of


year. Ministers behind-the-scenes trying to persuade Philip Hammond to


crank open his cheque book. Briefings about the kind of Autumn


Statement we might expect. Have a brand-new Chancellor, are very


different character to the previous one. A lot of expectation that the


Autumn Statement will be more muted, not so politically grand as an


event. Mr Brown and Mr Osborne used that. Mr Brown was always making an


announcement about schools in his budget. That backfired. The forced


academies age and was chucked over the side last week. There are a list


of things George Osborne propose which have hit the dustcart. If he


is watching whenever the year is quite sure what he is doing with all


of his time that he might want to suggest things he dreamt up that


have disappeared. In a sense, the Autumn Statement and the budget used


to be a proxy for demonstrations that the Chancellor has had huge


influence over domestic policy, a massive influence over domestic


policy. That is not the case. But it Hammond is a different kind of


Chancellor. He has already indicated the big headline will be using


different kinds of targets to bring down the deficit in a more for


giving way, if you like, to create giant airbags. Depending on economic


circumstances. Precisely. He outlined some of his thoughts to the


Cabinet. It is almost likely have Cabinet government. It is almost


like we have political ministers sitting here. What about the word


resit? He did use that word. It will be much more downbeat, if you like.


Much more mooted. There is no question this is the first big shop


window for him as Chancellor. The Government is very well aware of the


economic dangers and how to pace ourselves from the European Union


for the bid is also clear he has made a break with what went before.


Probably George Osborne would have done the same thing, ditch his own


fiscal rules because of uncertainty around the economy. He was going to


give us a punishment budget, raise taxes and cut spending. The macro


economic justification for which has always eluded me if you're going


into recession. Hard to believe a Chancellor would do such a thing


rather than looking at the numbers, as they are. The key thing for the


Autumn Statement, Mr Hammond would have the latest OBR forecast for


2017. My understanding is privately Mr Hammond is Leumi about 2017. Even


on the record, he has said we are looking at a roller-coaster. --


Leumi. The Chancellor has basically put up a big red warning light


saying things might get grim and tough. The difference for him in


terms of judgments he has two made is we will have new forecasts but


very limited amounts of real reaction, if you like, real data. He


will try to make judgments about several years ahead based on only


three months since the world was turned upside down by the referendum


result. Westminster is moving to that focus now and Labour MPs, of


course no different MPs on the back bench, are starting to campaign on


things they would like to see for that we have seen MPs talking about


universal credit cuts. Some Tory MPs have considered joining forces with


SNP members on that. Foreign steel is being used in our


key defence projects. We know the Prime Minister likes to channel the


iron Lady, but when will she show some metal in standing up for some


British made steel? This government has stood up for British made steel


and we have made a number of measures for the steel industry. But


the honourable gentleman says there is no clarity in relation to Brexit.


I am clear that what we want to achieve is the best possible deal


for businesses in the United Kingdom to be able to trade and operate


within the single European market. Prime Minister, I applaud the


government's continued commitment to infrastructure development with 6000


projects in the pipeline worth 480 billion. Can the government is


quickly take forward the lower Thames crossing, and extra


investment in roads that will help to build more homes, jobs and


businesses in the Thames Gateway area? I am grateful to my honourable


friend I'm grateful to him for recognising the contribution the


government has made. The importance of that investment, we have


consulted on proposals around the lower Thames crossing. There were


more than 47,000 responses and those are being considered and the


Secretary of State for Transport will make his response in due


course. Jeremy Corbyn. Could I take this opportunity of welcoming Mesa


Constance McGinn and hope the evidently effective crash course in


midwifery undertaken by my honourable friend, the member for


Saint Helens Norton isn't assigned to the government we believe in


midwifery training. -- downgrading midwifery training. Mr Speaker, a


few months ago on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister


promised to stand up for families who are just managing to get by.


However, however, we now know these were just empty words as this


government plans to cut work allowances for exactly those


families who are just getting by. Isn't it the case her cuts to


universal credit will leave millions worse off? First of all can I


congratulate the right honourable gentleman on the birth of I


understand, his granddaughter. No? Then, I completely missed the point.


In that case... Wait for it. In that case, can I


just say perhaps one should never trust a former Chief Whip!


LAUGHTER. And on the point the right


honourable gentleman has raised in relation to universal credit, the


introduction of universal credit was an important reform brought about in


the welfare system. It is more simple so people can see much more


easily where they stand in relation to benefits. Crucially, the point


about universal credit is making short work always pays. As people


work more, they earn more. It is right we don't want to see people


just written off to a life on benefits, but we are encouraging


people to get into the workplace. It is unfair to blame a former Chief


Whip for some confusion. Not a very gallant. Can we not just Admir the


member for Saint Helen 's North for his work? Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, it


is extremely rude to point! Mr Speaker, her predecessor abandoned


these same cuts to working people through the tax credit system. Now


she is enacting them through universal credit. The Centre for


Social Justice says these cuts will leave 3 million families ?1000 a


year worse off. Why is the Prime Minister slipping the same cuts in


through the back door? I have to say to the right honourable gentleman,


at least my Chief Whip has a job. On the serious point he raises about


universal credit, I repeat what I have just said. It is important to


look at why universal credit was introduced. Under the benefits


system under the Labour government, what we saw was too many people


finding they were better off on benefits than they were in work.


What is important is the value work, we value getting people into work,


where they are able to work. But we want a system that is fair and it is


a system that is fair both to those who need the benefits, but also fair


to those who pay for the benefits through their taxes. There are many


families struggling to make ends meet who are paying for the benefits


of others. I want a system that is fair to them as well. This week, Mr


Speaker, Oxford University studies found that there is a direct link


between rising benefit sanctions and rising demand for food banks. A


million people accessed a foodbank last year to receive parcel. Only


40,000 did so in 2010. I welcome the government's promised to review the


workplace assessment for disabled people, but will she reassess the


whole punitive sanctions regime? It is absolutely right that in our


welfare system, we have a system that make sure those people who


receive benefits, are those who it is right to receive benefits. That's


why we have assessments in our welfare system. It is also important


in our welfare system, we ensure those who are able to get into the


workplace, are making every effort to get into the workplace. That's


why we have sanctions. What the right honourable gentleman wants is


no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. That's not fair


to the people accessing the welfare system and it's not fair to the tax


payers who are paying for it. According to Sheffield Hallam


University study, one in five claimants who have been sanctioned


became homeless as a result. Many of those included families with


children. Could I recommend the Prime Minister supports British


cinema and takes herself along to the cinema to see a film called I,


Daniel Blaikie. And perhaps she could take the Work and Pensions


Secretary with her because he described the film as unfair and


then went on to admit he had never seen it. He has a very fair sense of


judgment. But I will tell her what is unfair, Annex servicemen dying


without food in his own due to the government's sanction regime. It is


time we ended this institutionalised barbarity against often, very


vulnerable people. I have to say to the right honourable gentleman, of


course it is important that in our welfare system we ensure those who


need the support the state is giving them to the benefit system are able


to access the bat. But it is important in our system, those who


are paying for it feels the system is fair to them as well. That is


right, that is why we need to have work capability assessments, it is


why we need to have sanctions in our system. The right honourable


gentleman has a view there should be no sanctions and unlimited welfare.


I have to say to him, the Labour Party is drifting away from the


views of Labour voters. It is this party that understands working-class


people. Mr Speaker, the housing benefit bill has gone up by more


than ?4 billion because of high levels of friends and the necessity


of supporting people in that. Is that a sensible use of public money?


I think not. In response to the March budget, I asked the Chancellor


to abandon... I asked the Chancellor, Mr Speaker, to abandon


the ?30 cut for disabled people on Employment and Support Allowance,


unable to work. But with support may be able to work in the future. They


want to be able to get into work. What evidence does the Prime


Minister have that imposing poverty on people with disabilities actually


helps them into work? I am pleased to say, what we have seen under this


government is nearly half a million disabled people now in the


workplace. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has launched a


Green paper on work which is looking at how we can continue to provide


and increase support for those who regard the tables and want to get


into the workplace. But he started by asking me about the increased in


housing benefit. If he thinks the amount of money spent on housing


benefit, is so important, why did he opposed the changes we proposed the


housing benefit is to introduce the housing benefit bill? As the Prime


Minister knows, my concern and those of my party is the incredible amount


of money being paid into the private rented sector by excessive rent and


that could be brought under control and handled much better. Mr Speaker,


many people in this House will have been deeply moved by my honourable


friend, the member of the Swansea East's article about the tragic


death of her son and having to take out a bank loan for the cost of the


funeral. The Sunday Mirror with the support of the Labour Party are


calling for an end to cancel charges the parent is laying a child to


rest. It would cost ?10 million a year, a small proportion of


government expenditure to ensure every Council could ensure those


laying a child to rest could not have a bill imposed on them by the


local authority. I hope the Prime Minister can act on this? I


recognise those issues, there are facilities available through the


social fund social scheme the payments for people who meet those


eligibility conditions. It is difficult for anybody when they have


to go through the tragedy of losing a child and then facing the


consequences of the sorts the right honourable gentleman makes. We are


making sure, in relation to local authorities, they now have the extra


revenue available to them to business rates under the local


revenues. It is up to councils to consider what they wish to do in


this. But I say there are facilities available through the social fund


funeral expenses to deal with the issue he raises. David McIntosh.


Northamptonshire has, for a long time, been affected by a growing


population without the right level of funding for public services. Can


my right honourable friend assure meet the current reviews into the


funding formulas for school, policing and health will reflect the


population growth in Northampton and the rest of the county so services


get the funding they need? I can say we have protected the


schools budget in relation to funding per pupil and we have


protected the police budget. As we look at various ways we are funding


public services in the constituency and County of Northampton, we will


look at the very issue of what is right in terms of the need of the


local area and the numbers. Angus Robertson. It is with sadness we


learn of the death... No doubt the Prime Minister and right honourable


colleagues will extend their condolences to the family, friends


and colleagues of a serviceman who has died so tragically. The Prime


Minister says she wants to tackle international and domestic tax


avoidance and serious criminality. On these benches we support this. If


she were told that specific UK financial vehicles are being used


for tax avoidance and other serious commonality, what would you do about


it? -- criminality. Can I first of all say, I'm sure the whole House


would wish to pass on condolences of the friends and family of the


service man who died. We have done a significant amount in terms of tax


avoidance. What should anybody do if they have evidence of people


avoiding tax? I suggest he speaks to HMRC. Scottish limited partnerships


were established by this House in 1907 are now being aggressively


marketed internationally, especially in Eastern Europe. The International


Monetary Fund has warned on the risk imposed and the fight against global


money laundering and against organised crime. It is a matter of


public record that SLP 's affected as France for child abuse and have


been part of corruption in Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova and include


the arms industry. Given the seriousness of this industry and the


Prime Minister's and to deal with criminality but the lack of


progress, will she agreed to meet with me to discuss a joint way


forward? The right honourable gentleman raises issues around


criminality and investigations into criminal activity that is taking


place and he talks about the issue of websites peddling child abuse and


child sexual exploitation. It is in order to increase our ability to


deal with this criminal activity that we created the National Crime


Agency, we have been ensuring we have been working on other issues


with the city like money-laundering, and we are looking at the whole


question of how we can ensure we are taking effective action on criminal


activity. I am pleased to say, he keeps saying, well I meet with him?


As he knows, I do meet with him on occasions. I am always happy to meet


the right honourable gentleman. If he wants to talk to me about dealing


with criminal activity, I will be a good tell him about the work that


has been done under this government working with the city on


money-laundering and enhancing our ability to deal with the sort of


criminal activity he is talking about. Does the Prime Minister agree


it is disappointed with it. Here from the Leader of the Opposition


any welcome for the huge boost to manufacturing and employment that


have come from the Nissan decision? Does she agree that demonstrates


great confidence in the UK with benefits throughout the supply


change, including companies like Automotive Installations, in my


constituency. It is extremely disappointing that the leader of the


position has not actually welcomed, unlike his colleague, the honourable


member for Sunderland West and Washington, who has welcomed the


fact that these jobs have been saved in her constituency and in the


supply chain around the country. It is that supply chain which is every


bit as important. I know that Automotive Installations are


receiving money and I wish them all the best for the future. What


assurances can the Prime Minister give to the agri- food sector right


across the United Kingdom that it would be given the important status


that is required when it comes to any Brexit negotiations? I can


absolutely assure the honourable gentleman that we are determined,


first of all, to get the best possible deal on exiting the


European Union for the British people. We're looking at the various


sectors. We are very conscious of the importance of food in the


agricultural sector across the United Kingdom and particularly of


the importance to that sector to Northern Ireland. We will be doing


all we can to listen to the representations made by the Northern


Ireland Executive and make sure we have the best deal possible for


agri- food sector. Last week's announcement on accelerated access


to medicines report will make a positive impact to the lives of


children and adults with a rare genetic and un-diagnosed condition.


Decades patients have struggled to get access to this medicine. The


progress made but I honourable friend from Mid Norfolk will make


massive progress on that. Will the Prime Minister confirmed that if the


programme is successful to the first five to ten drugs in the first year


it will be extended further drugs in the following years? You are right


to welcome the accelerated access you and to pay tribute for our


honourable member for Mid Norfolk who has placed life sciences in the


UK on the agenda and ensure we are able to sue the UK developing at


best possible place to develop new drugs. That is what we want to see.


With regard to the recommendations from the review, the Department of


Health will be responding to those shortly. I think this is an


important element in terms of our ability to accelerate that access to


drugs, which is to the benefit of patients. Recent weeks have seen


three government ministers express three different views on what will


happen while industry cries out for clarity. Not Brexit, surprisingly


enough but the oil and gas industry. Can I asked the Prime Minister will


she bring forward additional support for this industry in the Autumn


Statement or is she happy to sit back and see more jobs lost? I say


to the honourable gentleman, of course we understand the challenges


the UK oil and gas industry are facing and we take those very


seriously. I also say to him that is why we have established the oil and


gas authority and why we have taken action. The 2.3 billion package of


measures in the last two budgets to make sure the North Sea continues to


attract investment and safeguard the future of this vital national asset.


We have taken a range of measures. We understand the concerns about the


oil and gas industry and assess what the Government has taken action. --


and that is why. Watch as the airport and the Medway industrial


estate are home to a number of science SMEs which are doing wonders


to our economy. I would like to congratulate the decision to take a


cohort of SMEs to help increase trading relationships with emerging


economies. Can I ask if her dedication will continue in ensuring


all parts of our economy are able to seize the opportunities that present


themselves as we leave be you? You are right about the importance of


small and medium-sized businesses and obviously as she has referenced


in the technology industry. That is why I am pleased in my trip to India


I will be taking leading small and medium-sized businesses in life


sciences and technology sectors. It is important to get them to forge


trading links with India. As we look at the races for leaving the


European Union we will be taking the interests of all sectors into


account. -- the arrangements. Tartar speciality is a big employer in my


constituency. It's workforce is worried by the period of uncertainty


and acted by Tata Steel. With the Prime Minister use her trade visit


to India to secure the future production of steel in Britain and


convey the importance of Tata Steel acting as a responsible owner and


seller of its UK assets? I can assure the honourable lady we


recognise the importance of steel and the importance of temper macro


in the United Kingdom. That is why we have had discussions with Tata in


the United Kingdom and we will continue to sow do. -- the


importance of Tata. My constituency apparently contains more powers than


any other. This means world class cheese. Can the Prime Minister


ensure West Country farmers that in best deal for Britain the interests


of the agricultural industry and farming community will be foremost


in her mind question that will she popped down to Somerset soon for


perhaps a chunk of cheddar and drop of cider? We are grateful to the


honourable gentleman. The Prime Minister. His invitation for West


Country cheese and cider is an invitation which is difficult to


refuse. I look forward at some stage of coming down into Somerset and


being able to sample those products. He is absolutely right about the


importance of our agricultural sector to economies across the UK,


but particular parts of the UK rely heavily on the agricultural sector.


We will be taking their needs and considerations into account as we


negotiate the best possible deal for this country leaving the EU. This


morning, the High Court ruled that the Government has comprehensively


failed to properly tackle air pollution. Which does the Prime


Minister feel is worse? The Government losing in the High Court


for a second time or the 40,000 early deaths that may result from


air pollution every year in the UK? I have been asked about equity in


this chamber previously at PMQs. -- air quality. We always recognise


there is more for the Government to do. We have been doing a lot in this


area. We have been putting extra money into actions that will relieve


the issues around are quality. We recognise that Defra needs to look


at the judgment made by the courts and we had to look again at the


proposals we will bring forward. Nobly in this Has doubts the


importance of the issue of air quality. There is more to do and we


will do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister will remember


visiting the Witney constituency recently. Chipping Norton has been


short listed for the great British high street awards. Does she join me


in congratulating the small businesses on Chipping Norton and


Tammy what support the Government offers to the small businesses in


our market towns? -- and tell me. Can I take this opportunity, my


first opportunity in this chamber, to welcome my honourable friend to


this chamber and for his excellent result in the by-election? Can I


just say, his question brings back many happy memories for me. As a


child, Chipping Norton was our local town and I use together and spend my


pocket money assiduously in the shops in Chipping Norton, so I have


done my bit for his high-street and we are clear, as the Government,


that business rates and issues regarding that will support local


businesses. We are always grateful for extra information and we have


now had it. This government's record on immigration detention is


disgraceful. Amid concern over plans to get a short-term detention centre


near Glasgow airport, will she use this as an bush unity to rethink her


detention policy? -- and opportunity. A lot of work has been


done by the Government on the issue of immigration detention and the


number of changes have taken place. An Independent review took place the


year or so ago on the question of detention of people. I would say, it


is important that where there are people who are due to be removed


from this country, and the prospect is that actually they could be lost


in the system if they are not being detained, there are circumstances in


which it is right to detain people in the immigration estate. We need


to make sure we have got that right and that is why a lot of work has


been bananas. The fundamental point, I suspect he does not think we


should detain anybody in relation to immigration enforcement but we


believe they should rightfully be detained before they are removed


from this country. When people make fun of Christianity in this country,


it rightly turns the other cheek. When a young gymnast, Louis Smith,


makes fun of another religion widely practised in this country, he is


hounded on Twitter by the media and suspended by his association. For


goodness sake, this man received death threats and we have all looked


the other way. My question to the Prime Minister is, what is going on


in this country? I no longer understand the rules. I understand


the level of concern my honourable friend has raised in relation to


this matter. This is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of


expression and freedom of its buses like a speech in this country. That


is essential in underpinning our democracy. We also value tolerance


to others, tolerance in relation to religion. This is one of the issues


we have looked at in the counter extremism strategy the Government


has produced. I think we need to ensure it is right that people can


have that freedom of expression but in so doing that right has a


responsibility as well. That is a responsibility recognise the


importance of tolerance to others. Mr Speaker, today's daily record


leads on DWP issues. Is the Prime Minister aware Telephone call to the


Department for Work and Pensions by a severely disabled person of a


carer can cost up to 45p a minute. This is a considerable sum from the


Social Security entitlement. Should a disabled citizen pay this price or


does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should end this telephone


tax on the most honourable in our society? The honourable gentleman


raises an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in this


House. The Government is in promoting new guidelines in relation


to the operation of these telephone lines and a number of lines are


being reduced. The Government has recognised this issue and is taking


action. The last 18 months have been hell for commuters in my


constituency in Lewis at using the southern row network. Last night a


journey which should have taken an hour took over four hours. And I


begged the Prime Minister to intervene on the southern network?


Why we have a country that works for everyone we have a railway that


works for no one. I feel for my honourable friend in relation to the


journey she had to go through last night and the extended time that


tip. We have my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State


transport, who has taken action in recent weeks in relation to the


improvements are necessary. We have stepped in to invest ?20 million to


tackle the breakdown on the southern row network that has proven so


difficult to passengers. -- southern rail. I recognise the degree of


concern. The Secretary of State transport is working on this to


ensure those improvements. Has the Prime Minister spotted the ludicrous


refusal by Fifa, the footballing federation, to let our players wear


poppies at the forthcoming Scotland - England game? Will he tell the


respective associations that in this country we decide when to wear


poppies? And they will be wearing them at Wembley. I think the stance


that has been taken by Fifa is utterly outrageous. Our football


players want to recognise and respect those who have given their


lives for our safety and security. I think it is absolutely right they


should be able to do so. It is for our football associations but a


clear message is going from this House. We want our players to be


able to wear those poppies. I have to say two feet, before they start


telling us what to do, they ought to sort their own house out. -- I have


to say to Fifa. Could I congratulate my right honourable friend on her


recent announcement of a task force to stamp out the file business of


modern slavery? Would she join me in congratulating my constituents, Mike


Emberson, and the men I trust on their ten years of work with the


victims and the 70 places they now provide across their homes for these


most unfortunate women? -- Menai. I have met with representatives from


the Menai Trust. It is right we continue our momentum in the fight


against modern slavery. Too much slavery is taking place on the


streets and in the towns and villages of this country. That is


why the task force I have setup will continue that momentum. We will be


relentless in our pursuit of ensuring we eradicate modern


slavery. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In July, the Armed Forces charity


published an in-depth survey of nearly 1000 working age veterans.


85% thought the UK did not give them enough support. Only 16% thought the


Armed Forces covenant was being implemented effectively. What is the


Prime Minister doing personally to change this? We absolutely recognise


the debt we owe to our veterans. That is why we have the Armed Forces


covenant. We recognise the support necessary for veterans. He talks


about what we can do. One thing we can do is to help people coming out


of the Armed Forces actually find their way into the world of work.


That is quite is important that we have a system which helps them to


find a support necessary to get into the world of work and we have an


economy providing jobs that people need. This week it is wind energy


week. The devell at the offshore wind sector is vital to my


Cleethorpes constituency. Can you ensure the governor will continue to


work with the industry to develop future jobs for young people with


emphasis on training? I am happy to reassure my honourable friend that


the Government will continue to work with this industry. It has been an


important development for the United Kingdom and an important part of the


amount of energy we are now generating from renewables. As he


said it does provide jobs and we need to ensure we look at training


for people to be able to take up those jobs. That is why skills is


part of the work we are doing on our future industrial strategy. Will the


Prime Minister agree with me that it is highly irresponsible and


dangerous for people to talk up the prospects of increased violence in


Northern Ireland as a result of us are leaving the U? People should


used the agreed institutions set up under various agreements, not stand


outside them or create new ones. Can she assure me it will not result in


an impeding of the way that people in countries within the UK connect


with each other? I am very happy to get the right honourable gentleman


that assurance in relation to movement around the United Kingdom.


No change will take place. It is right that what we will do in Brexit


is ensure it is a good deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. Those


who wish to encourage violence off the back of that frankly should be


ashamed of themselves. It is absolutely essential that we all


work together to make a success of this and get the best possible


opportunities for people across the whole of the United Kingdom. Will


she join me in praising Henley-on-Thames for receiving its


first tranche of community infrastructure money at the higher


rate because it has a neighbourhood plan? Will she join me in saying


this is the best means of giving communities a say over planning


issues? I am very happy to congratulate both my neighbouring MP


and congratulate Henley-on-Thames for achieving that. He is right.


Neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the planning system. That is


the way in which a local people can have a real say over what is


happening in their local area. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I add my


congratulations to my honourable friend and member for St Helens?


Moving swiftly from midwives to doctors, is the Prime Minister aware


that doctors in Doncaster are facing a crisis in primary care? As GPs


retire, it is proving almost impossible to get new ones to take


over their practices. Because of restrictions in the health and


social care act, NHS bodies cannot take necessary action, for example


to put in salaried GPs. Will she do something about this quickly because


otherwise many of my constituents will be left without a doctor? Mr


Speaker, can I say, because I did not after my unfortunate mistake I


made earlier about the right honourable gentleman, I failed to


add my congratulations to her honourable friend, the member for St


Helens. I am happy now to do. On the point of GPs, it is important that


we see the number of GPs coming through so that we can replace those


who are retiring. Over the last six years we have seen thousands more


GPs in our NHS that is why my right honourable friend, the Secretary of


State for Health, is ensuring we have a programme to bring forward


more GPs, more doctors into training, so we can ensure places


like her constituency and others around this House actually have GPs


in the numbers they need. Prime Minister's Questions come to


an end a little earlier by the standards of the current speaker.


Jeremy Corbyn asked about the cut in work allowances on universal credit.


Those of you who watched the Sunday Politics last weekend will know what


is involved. He said it leaves people worse off. He also talks


about than the rising number of people being sanctions on benefits


and it led to people becoming homeless. That was the gist of the


main exchanges. It all started after, the Prime Minister seemed to


think Jeremy Corbyn had just had a granddaughter. What I understand is,


there is a background to this. As a Labour MP, former whip called,


McGinn. He hacked to deliver his own baby. Mr Corbyn began PMQs by


congratulating him on the happy news. Theresa May for some reason.


Jeremy Corbyn was talking about the birth of his own granddaughter. When


she discovered that was not the case, immediately blamed her former


Chief Whip and I think current Transport Secretary, Patrick


McLaughlin for giving her duff news. So there we go. I am sure you all


wanted to know that. Made it clear. Jeremy Corbyn looked surprised. We


all looked surprised. The big story to come out of this was nothing to


do with that. It was when asked about Fifa's ban on teams wearing


poppies this weekend that it is outrageous that players should not


wear poppies this weekend, and before anything else and worrying


about poppies, it should sort its own house out.


Just a little bit on the common McGinn scenario. Someone said


politicians really shouldn't do jokes or witty observations. Ian


White lycees, Theresa May was able to whack Jeremy Corbyn with the


welfare party tag as David Cameron used to. She seemed to be


uncomfortable under questioning from Angus Robertson from the SNP.


Christopher says, one of Jeremy Corbyn's failure is his inability to


follow up on the answer the Prime Minister gives him, he just moves on


to the next question. Bill Taylor says, why didn't Jeremy Corbyn bring


up the Orgreave enquiry. People thought it was going to be announced


by the government, but Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, decided not to


give it the go-ahead because Labour did nothing about it. And someone


else says, do these people trawl through the obituaries to express


condolences. It is mostly people we have never heard about. It is morbid


and gruesome. Strange week with as oceans and


babies being delivered. The question about poppies and F came from a


Labour backbencher. It may be the Prime Minister wasn't aware that was


coming. But I would suggest for her to say it is utterly outrageous that


if it did come up, she knew what she would say about it? It seems she was


ready with an answer and an attack on Fifa, not the most difficult


people to attack, given what has happened at Fifa and she felt very


strongly about it and she was ready with the answer. And after a scrappy


session of PMQs, that was the standout answer. Something that will


be picked up on across-the-board. Whether what the British Prime


Minister says about Fifa's own rules and if they should apply is not


clear. Most voters in this country think it is ridiculous that Fifa can


set out a ruling that the English, Scottish and Welsh football teams


cannot wear poppies this weekend. Jeremy Corbyn concentrated on what


would be the cuts to some of the help on universal credit as it is


introduced. Which has the effect of making, for the working poor who are


dependent on benefits to top up their pay, the marginal rate of tax,


the loss of benefits, becomes a much higher than was originally


envisaged. Mr Corbyn didn't quote any Tory backbenchers and this, that


the Prime Minister is under pressure. He could have quoted Iain


Duncan Smith, who has said he believes these cuts should be


stopped. And forgive the brief history lesson, lasted the


government was pressured into dropping the planned cuts, but they


kept up with the planned cuts for universal credit. That will replace


the tax credit system. So the immediate cuts to families, which


would have been significant to people on tax credits, was deferred.


It didn't disappear and it will take place, if as scheduled, under


universal credit. People receiving tax credits will move onto the


universal credit system and the amount of support they will get will


be less than had been planned. But there isn't at the stage, any signed


the government will back down on this the Autumn Statement. The


campaign around it may gather momentum, but at this stage it


doesn't feel like the amount of pressure built up on George Osborne.


I will not ask you to pre-empt what is in the Autumn Statement, but the


Prime Minister has made a big deal of the just managing classes from


which, is the working poor. So therefore, we can judge her on this,


we can now look at what she does compared with the rhetoric on the


steps of Downing Street. In two ways, the working poor are about to


take a hit. One is the way Laura has been talking about, less of a top up


because of the cuts being made to their pretty low pay. The second, as


inflation rises, their benefits are not indexed linked, so they get hit


in that way and it could be a real terms cut for them. I don't quite


understand at the moment how she lives up to that working pro


rhetoric. What you are not taking into account is the national living


wage, the work going on to see that people are going into work. The


record levels of employment. As she said during PMQs, work should always


pay and the balance supporting those on welfare, but also those paying


for it as well. She made a clear point for those who aren't on high


wages but are equally contributing to the welfare system. It is that


overall balance she is articulating, the pathway to employment and the


life opportunity it brings. There are more working poor, but when 1.2


million get the rise in the national minimum wage, what marginal rate of


tax will they pay on it? We have the ?7 20 at the moment in relation to


the national living wage and that will increase steadily. But what


marginal rate of tax will they pay? I will not pre-empt the Autumn


Statement. For some people it could be as high as 75%, when you take


into account the tax they pay and the benefits they will lose. Another


?100, which could be a lot of money for the working poor, they lose ?75


of it. Would you do extra work for ?100 knowing he would lose ?70? It


is giving the sense of opportunity for people to yes, move into


employment. The welfare system is there as a hand up, to help people


through difficult opportunities. But as the Prime Minister also


indicated, we have this issue of sanctions, which the Leader of the


Opposition highlighted. There are a relatively small number of people


who are sanctions, but it is right we have the sense of helping people


into employment and if they don't play by those rules, then obviously


there are sanctions that can operate. I didn't ask about


sanctions, if the idea is to make work pay and encourage people to get


into work and to keep more of what they own, I don't understand how


taking away 75% of the extra effort they make is encouraging work to


pay. The point is, you have a welfare system where work should


always pay, the basic sense of employment and the wages you


receive. The richest people in this land don't face a marginal rate of


75%. If they did, there would be rushed to the Borders. But we expect


the working poor to marginal rates of tax up to that level. It used to


be higher, one stage it was over 90%. But 75, with seeing too many


people, to discourage trying to do a bit more, particularly if you are


already in a job that is hard work, minimum wage, long hours and no huge


remuneration. Then you are told you will get a pay rise. You think,


good, I deserve it. But then you are told, by the way he will only get


25% of that pay rise. It is not fair, is it? We are taking steps to


ensure work will always pay, in relation to where the welfare cap is


in relation to employment. We are only judging Theresa May, the Prime


Minister, by the yardstick she has set herself. We will see what the


Autumn Statement is, we will come back to you in a minute. What do you


make of the Prime Minister saying to Jeremy Corbyn, you don't agree in


assessments, you don't agree in sanctions or any limits to welfare,


is it true? It is not true at all and Jeremy Corbyn hasn't said that.


We said if you have a system, it needs to operate fairly. So you do


believe in sanctions? If people consistently break the rules in


relation to benefits and entitlements, then of course. But


they should be a last resort. What we have seen is a plethora of


sanctions to people who shouldn't have been sanctioned and that is why


they end up in situations where they rely on food banks or homeless.


Final thought, Laura? You saw this row between David Cameron and Ed


Miliband, we will see this row over the next years between Theresa May


and Jeremy Corbyn. Partly because the way the Tories took about this,


you have people on welfare and people who are in work. Most people


on benefits have jobs, so there is a slight either intentional


misunderstanding or a fundamental different worldview. Because they


are the just managing? This may trip Theresa May. She said this is the


party that understands working class people. It is her ambition to place


herself in that sense, but it will have to go a long way to match up


the rhetoric she is hoping to make the centre of her mission, if you


like. We will continue to monitor the rhetoric and the policy.


Penny Mordaunt on the programme said there were no plans to reverse those


cuts, but no plans is not quite the same.


Michael Heseltine said he had no plans to stand against Margaret


Thatcher. What about the Alsatian? That wasn't consulted. Coming back


to Theresa May's comment about Fifa banning the home countries wearing


poppies. Wales face Serbia. The further forbids what it calls


political imagery. Answering a question from the Labour MP Steve


McCabe during PMQs, Theresa May said the flesh should think again. I


think the stand is being taken by Fifa is outrageous. Our football


players have won to recognise and respect those who have given their


lives for our safety and security. It is absolutely right they should


be able to do so and it is for our football associations, but a clear


message is going from this house. We want our players to wear those


poppies. I have to say to Fifa, before they tell us what to do, they


jolly well should sort their own house out. We are joined by the


associate editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin Maguire. She is right,


isn't she? This is a rerun of an argument five years ago when a


compromise was reached that England players will wear a black armband


with poppies on it. But the reason it has breached the rules, the


commercial symbols, we see the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, others


will see it differently. If you allow something, let's remember they


raise money for serving soldiers, not just of those from previous


wars. But what about the red Army benevolent fund wants to be on the


Russian shirt or the People's Army of China in North Korea or they want


an anti-Israeli slogan of the Revolutionary guards in Iran want to


have a go at Iraq. You open the door and lots of people will be calling


for symbols that we would find offensive. But remembering the war


dead, is it the same as a political statement? It is a political side to


any war and the money is raised for serving troops now, including those


who fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, two hugely controversial conflicts


around the world. It is ridiculous we have a clear symbol where we


remember our war dead, remembering those who have given their lives in


service of their country and we have a situation where there is


precedent, other sports are allow this and Fifa are standing in the


way of this. I don't understand why they are taking this stance and it


is so ridiculous. If Fifa said yes to everybody would be adorned in all


sorts of political symbols that would be more controversial? I think


Fifa should keep out of it, and I agree with Theresa May. Fifa should


look at their corruption and people dying building stadiums for the next


World Cup. I have been watching football the decades, I have got the


grey hair. But the truth is, in England, clubs never used to put the


poppy on their shirts. This only started a few years ago. You would


have great anniversaries for the First World War, Second World War,


they didn't have Fifa. Then all of a sudden, a football game, awash with


money and a terrible image, has latched onto the poppy to show it


cares. Should they were the poppy? Absolutely I think they should. Do


you advise them to wear it and get the fine? I suppose then they can


give somebody else another bong. They are not going to kick the


country out of a competition or deduct points, so I presume it is a


fine. Would it open the floodgates to other countries? All of a sudden


we would find ourselves are objecting to symbols on other


country's shirts. Thank you for joining us today on the subject of


poppies. There's just time to put you out


of your misery and give You press the button, Jo.


Congratulations, Roger. He writes great songs. No, that is his


brother. BBC One news coming up. Jo and I


will be here tomorrow with more of the Daily Politics. Love to see you


then. Goodbye. He's a scientist,


brilliant apparently. But you may be bringing people over


here who did things during the war. I will not work for you. I will not


work for the British Government. Let us not let the past haunt


all of our actions. You've got to do something!


It's only you that can!


Download Subtitles