Browse content similar to 09/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
MPs have voted overwhelmingly to give the prime minister the power
to trigger Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.
It's now over to the Lords, but so far the bill has caused more
problems for Jeremy Corbyn than Theresa May.
This morning, MPs are crying foul over moves to end the Dubs
scheme for child refugees, while the government
Surrey Council insists ministers didn't cut a special deal
to persuade it to call off a referendum on council tax.
So just why did local Conservatives change their mind?
And Surrey's council leader isn't the first politician to send
All that in the next hour and we're joined
Reading Giles' CV would take us up to the one o'clock news,
but as well as being a writer and broadcaster he's also
a former Conservative MP, and he once held the record
for the world's longest after-dinner speech -
which makes him perfectly qualified for this show.
First today, it was a big moment in the House of Commons last night,
as MPs voted by 4-1 to back the EU notification
of Withdrawal Bill, which gives the Prime Minister the authority
It survived the Commons unamended, and now moves onto the Lords.
Lifelong Eurosceptics were cock-a-hoop at the result,
Let's have a listen to Scottish National Party breaking into song.
Miss Gibson, it's very good to hold a choir,
but what I would say is, I personally don't mind singing,
but I certainly can't allow it in the chamber.
The Deputy Speaker getting a little angry. The tune was not Flower Of
Scotland. For those of you who couldn't name
the tune, it was Beethoven's Ode to Joy, which the EU has adopted
as its anthem. We did ask the SNP on this morning
but no-one was available. I think they were at choir practice.
Giles will sing it instead. What did you make of it? I did not
make much of it but given the Speaker's less stuffy House of
Commons, a bit of band standing on the part of the Scottish
Nationalists. Not happy, but once you begin to let anything go, when
applause and cheering is allowed, it is difficult to contain other people
when they are doing their thing. Anarchy could be breaking out.
Not in the Palace of Westminster! It was sedate. And during a division
by the look of it so the house was momentarily suspended, voting was
going on and there seemed to be a nice choir mistress conducting. And
the sinking sotto voce. That comes next!
Is it a rule not to break into song? It is not Parliamentary to sing,
speak in other languages, to applaud and these things still happen. I was
trying to remember when Labour MPs once broke into the Red Flag. I
cannot remember. No doubt Twitter will remember.
And you can announce it later. That is not the quiz.
We'll be returning to last night's vote a little later in the show,
but now let's turn to this morning in the Commons, where
the government has been asked about its announcement,
made in the fifth paragraph of a written statement published
after Prime Minister's Questions, that the so-called 'Dubs'
scheme to take in child refugees is to finish,
having helped just 350 children - far short of the thousands
We will transfer the specified number of 350 children,
pursuant to that section, who reasonably meet the intention
This number includes over 200 children already
transferred under section 67, from France, and I want
to be absolutely clear, the scheme is not closed.
Where does it say in the Hansard debate that I have here
from our debates on the Dubs amendment that we will only help
Where does it say that instead of the 3,000
that Parliament debated, we will only help the
Where does it say that when we get the chance, we will somehow
It doesn't, because we didn't say that at the time.
Labour's Yvette Cooper. Giles, do you agree with Lord Dubs who put
forward the amendment, himself a child refugee from Nazi Germany,
that this is a shabby move? It looks like it. I am a fan of Lord Dubs. He
came over as a refugee. A lifetime of public service and secured a
great success, persuading the government of the day to change its
mind and introduce what is known as the Dubs amendment, allowing quite a
small number of children who do not have people to look after them to
come into this country, up to 2000 and taken care of by local
authorities. It is not asking a lot. We are still a prosperous country
and we should be a generous country and we should be seen to be doing
the right thing by these children. It looks disappointing. Lord Dubs
was surprised. There was not a time limit on this amendment. There was
no specific number but calls for 3000, 3500 children to be brought in
Rather than 300 and 50. Timing is interesting in the midst of debate
and discussion over Brexit. You think this was an attempt to try to
drop the scheme? Buried the news in paragraph 40 seven. You said it.
Possibly. I don't know. It seems unnecessary. Such a small thing in
the great scope of things to be seen to be generous and open. Such a
triumph. They got brownie points agreeing to the amendment. We were
at the Oldie awards. They were honoured for the work they had done
on refugees, everybody cheered cross-party, even David Cameron. His
government allowed the amendment to take place. It is disappointing the
way it is perceived. It looks like the government is tracking. They say
it is not being stopped. Don't worry, we are adjusting things as we
go along and hopefully Dubs will rule.
The question for today is all about a debate
in the Lords yesterday, when peers were discussing
the shortage of vegetables caused by bad weather on the continent.
Courgettes, spinach and lettuce are all in short supply.
But which appropriately-named peer replied for the government?
What great green fingered names they have in the Lords.
At the end of the show, Gyles will give
The Red Flag was sang on 2006 to mark the Labour Party's founding.
They sang it in 1979 when they lost the vote of confidence in Mrs
Thatcher's first government and in 1976, the night Michael Heseltine
grabbed the base because he was angry at Welsh MPs for singing it.
The most famous was in 1945, when Labour came in with a landslide. --
mace. You learn a lot on the show. Yesterday at Prime Minister's
Questions, Jeremy Corbyn staged a good old-fashioned ambush,
claiming to have evidence that the government had cut a deal
with Surrey Council to avoid the prospect of
a local tax increase. Surrey County Council,
which is Conservative controlled,, had announced it would hold
a referendum on raising council tax by 15% to pay for the spiralling
costs of social care. To raise it by that amount you have
to have a referendum. But at PMQs, the Labour leader said
a text message exchange showed the council had dropped its plan
after striking a "sweetheart" deal The text messages in question
were sent by Conservative leader of Surrey County Council,
David Hodge. It is thought they were
intended for Nick King, a special adviser at the Department
for Communities But instead he sent
them to another Nick, believed to be Nick Forbes,
the Labour leader of Newcastle In his first message,
Councillor Hodge said he had been advised
that the Communities Department received clarification
that the numbers being talked about are "acceptable" enough
for him to call off the 'R' - which we assume referred
to the referendum on the tax rise. After the messages were published,
Surrey's leader said there had been "no deal"
with the government. But later, the Communities
Department clarified that Surrey would be part of a new pilot scheme
to retain 100% of the money it raises from business rates,
which could in future plug It added, "All other councils
will be free to apply to participate in these pilots,
and the government And to discuss that we're joined
by one of Surrey's Conservative MPs, Kwasi Kwarteng, and Labour's only
Surrey councillor, Richard Evans. We asked the government
for an interview but were told Welcome. Councillor Evans, you were
at the Council budget meeting. Tell us what happened. We got there for
the budget meeting be expected to start at ten o'clock and we were
told there was an adjournment until 11 o'clock and then another
adjournment on the budget until one o'clock when we were anticipating,
even the Conservatives and Cabinet members in the Conservatives
expected a vote on the 15% increase and putting it out to a referendum
and then we were told by the leader, Mr Hodge, we would not need that and
that he had had a promise, or he was confident he could go ahead with 5%.
This was a shock to everyone. When you went to the meeting, the
universal expectation was you would vote essentially for a 15% increase,
which could only happen with a referendum? Absolutely. The fact it
was cut to 4.9%, I think, for which you do not need a referendum, was a
surprise? A total surprise, to even the Conservative cabinet members. In
your view, was a deal done? Something must have been done. For
months, the leader of the council told us there was no alternative, he
had spoken to government about the funding needed in Surrey and the
funding for adult social care has been cut and the budget would not
add up without the 15% rise in council tax. I think they got wind
they would lose the referendum. Which is probably they would have
done? There was no evidence people would vote for it. Most thought they
would lose by 75%. Did he indicate he had assurances from anybody that
with 5%, to round it up, that he could fill the gap? No, he did not
give that assurance. We had been asking for details and information
and it has been clouded in mystery and secrecy. Cloak and dagger stuff.
He kept the council in the dark on this. What happened? I have no idea.
You are a Tory MP. I do know, but I do not run the county council nor do
I have a seat on that county council but I know there was a lot of local
activists. The party was upset about a referendum and huge pressure was
applied to David Hodge from my constituency in Spelthorne but our
chairman, volunteers in the county, and we did not want a referendum. We
did not go into politics as conservatives to raise taxes by 15%.
There are ten Conservative MPs in Surrey. I think there are 11. You
could say 12 and I would not be surprised. Five in government,
including the Chancellor, Health Secretary, you are an MP. This was a
huge interest to the Conservative Party in the county, there must've
been involvement by MPs at the prospect of a Conservative council
proposing a referendum on a 50% increase? We upset about it. We
tried to use persuasion. The referendum is not happening. Neither
is the 15% increase. We managed to exert moral pressure, if you like,
persuasion to call off the referendum and it was a decision be
county council and particularly David Hodge made. -- 15%. The deals
they say has been done is that you will be part of a pilot that gets to
keep the business tax to see what happens. That does not come in until
2018, and I understand you've missed the first round. It is one year
away. How will you fill the gap? You mentioned 4.9% of the other thing
you have failed to mention was... Well, I did mention it. You cut me
off. The manifesto is very clear. They are keen that they retain the
business rates is that is a huge business in Surrey and a huge
generator of revenue, and that will help the shortfall in revenue. Do we
know how much? Sorry kept 41 million of the local rate revenue and the
social care bill was 516 million, so how do we fill the gap? -- sorry. We
have a 5% increase, and we all know this because it was made clear,
there might well have to be some reductions in expenditure that is
how you the budget, typically. Can the holding onto a bigger chunk of
the business rate make much of a difference? There is business in
Surrey. Prosperous business? Yes, prosperous business but it's not a
solution for this year, starting at the beginning of April. When I've
asked for information, this is what I got back from the leader of the
council. A lot of black lines. This letter was sent to all the MPs and I
was asking for details of what was going on and it has been redacted.
Are they national secrets in this? I don't know. It's only from the
leader of the council. Is there a D notice on this? What could he be
saying to Surrey MPs that he won't say to the council? Tell me about
the government code of transparency. This is David Hodge and I'm not here
to answer for him. I have read it and from my recollection there was
nothing to -- to sensational. Redacting is when councils are
asking what is going on means there is no openness. How can we vote on a
budget if we opt not given the information? My understanding was it
was a full debate and a lot of the numbers were transparent. The debate
had been built up for 15% and you said you'd like it, but the council
proposed that that is what the budget figure was, and on the last
minute on the basis of text messages being sent by the leader of the
council we were told it would be all right and we could get away with
just 5%. It is no way to run council. It is a shambles. According
to the Council finance director, Surrey will have to find an
additional ?30 million of cuts in this financial year -- 13 millions.
-- 30 million. It is a large amount but in the overall context of the
budget, they will have to find it. It's already lost 170 million in
central government funding. You will appreciate over the last four or
five years there has been the squeeze on the national budget and
it has affected councils up and down the country. Every council in the
country has to face the degree of financial pressure and Surrey are
doing this as well as anyone. We know there has been a squeeze on
budgets and the government felt they had to reduce the deficit. We know
all that. But it was a political decision to do that by taking 4.6
billion out of the social care system. That was a political
decision by your government at a time of rising demographics amongst
retired people and more social care was needed, and you took that
political decision, and that is surely why even prosperous places
like Surrey are in deep trouble. You are right. The country has
demographic challenges, as you describe. The question was whether
that commitment should be met at a national level from the national
exchequer or at the local and county council level and they should take
the strain. That was a political decision. This is in line with the
policy of trying to devolve responsibility in terms of budget,
devolving power means taking more responsibility. You have devolve the
problem and cut the budget by 4.6 billion and said over to you -- you
have devolved the problem. You chose some of the most vulnerable people
to be affected by this. There wasn't an argument that at some stage the
deficit had to be brought down, but you chose to do it in a way that
hits some of the oldest and most vulnerable people in society. I
disagree with that. What we were trying to do was to say that the
responsibility for adult social care should be devolved down to the
county councils. If the government had spent the money there wasn't
going to be any more money, the government would have made the
reductions. I think it was perfectly reasonable to say that local
councils were best placed to decide how to spend this reduced amount of
money. Where is the situation now? Let's assume that council tax will
go up by 5% and not 15% and there will be something done on business
rates coming in in 18 months' time or so. What is the situation between
now and then as far as you can tell? There is a big gap in the budget
because unless there is some sort of secret deal being done between
Surrey and the government to fill the gap there will be a big hole in
the finances of Surrey because one minute it was 15% are now it is 5%.
It's no good saying that adult social care should be funded by
local councils. Everybody recognises that this is a central government
responsibility. Adult social care funding will increase as people get
older, more people, particularly in Surrey and it has to be a national
government responsibility. It strikes me there are two things on
this. One is the natural journalistic suspicion that thinks,
here is a Tory heartland, Tory council, only one Labour MP on the
council. He didn't come on. I am sorry that our guest of the day is
so rude to our guests. Let me finish the question. And it is dealing with
a Tory government, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary come from
this county area, distinguished backbenchers like our other guests
here today. That is one thing. That is one thing, but even if keeping
more business rates was a solution for Surrey, that is because Surrey
has lots of businesses. There are other parts of the country where
they don't have that many businesses and this is not a route that helps
the social care fund. There is a double tension here. Going back 25
years when I was an MP, I recall the same conflict between local
government and national government. There is nothing new in this.
Essentially the people at County Hall thinks they can do think better
than the national government and the national government knows it can do
things better than at county level. So there is always this tension. It
goes back literally decades. The new dilemma, of course, is that we now
believe in localism so we are heaving no authority and power and
more money to people we don't always really believe can do the job as
properly. And problems as well. Now there is a big national problem
about this. Let's devolve and see what happens. OK, we have run out of
time. An interesting subject, and thanks for both of you. You didn't
have to talk about Brexit. Don't worry, we're going to now. After
that brief interlude we turn back to Brexit.
Now let's turn back last night's Brexit vote,
as MPs finished three days debating a piece of legislation
which looks certain to end up in the history books.
The debate has been at times tetchy, at times it's repeated
well-rehearsed arguments, but it's always been passionate.
Here's a look back at just some of the moments that
This House has spoken and now is not the time to obstruct
the democratically expressed wishes of the British people.
The Supreme Court was right to make clear that Parliament should exert
That influence should be felt at the start, throughout,
and, most importantly, at the end of the formal
Does he really think that in a negotiation,
many months, and be extraordinarily complicated, is it in the best
interests of the United Kingdom to have to reveal their hand
All of this will have an impact on the devolution process,
be it in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
If ministers respect the devolution process,
then they should have no problem with the additional scrutiny
Isn't the truth that she knows, we know, the whole House knows,
that the Scottish National Party have no interest and no desire
She knew that before tabling this amendment,
so members on this side of the House will be asking, surely this is just
It's quite clear that the honourable lady had not resumed her seat.
Being in the chair accords you many privileges,
but you cannot reinterpret the wishes of the honourable
I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion
on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses
of Parliament before it is concluded, and we expect and intend
that this will happen before the European Parliament debates
and votes on the final agreement.
That is a huge and very important concession about the process
What the House wants is the opportunity to send
the government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal,
That is exactly the vote we had on second reading of this Bill.
If you are at all worried about leaving the EU,
you should clearly not have voted for this Bill on second reading.
That is the point of the irrevocable debate.
I feel sometimes I am sitting along with colleagues who are like jihadis
We ought not to trigger Article 50 until we have given some sort
of assurance to EU nationals living in the United Kingdom
The quicker we get this Bill on the statute book,
the quicker we get Article 50 triggered, the quicker we can get
that arrangement in place and reassure EU nationals in Britain
I will not be voting with the opposition.
I am very content with the government's current
I urge all honourable and right honourable members who have tabled
amendments now to withdraw them, so that we can progress the Bill,
start the process of withdrawal and work to deliver a deal that
respects the vote of the British people in the referendum.
We're joined now by the shadow international trade
Welcome back. The government celebrating, and no wonder. Labour
put down 120 amendments, none of them were passed and you failed to
extract any concession from the government. If you look back three
or four months, at that time, we were saying that we wanted a vote in
parliament, we wanted a white Paper, we wanted clarity on the final
negotiated agreement and a vote on that. So, actually, over that period
the government moved and conceded those points. You're absolutely
right, and what they didn't do, and I regret it, is that they did not do
what the Supreme Court said should happen, which is that the people had
decided we should leave in the referendum but it was for Parliament
to then shape how we left. I think that was a mistake on the
government's part because it would have been stronger if Parliament had
felt it had the control of the process going forward. Just to argue
the point about three or four months ago, Gena Miller brought a court
case and that is why you got to debated in Parliament and Tory MPs
also demanded a White Paper. That was conceded and Theresa May had
already promised to have a vote on the actual deal done. I ask you
again, what did Labour actually extract from the government? I don't
think that is a fair analysis of what was going on. What happened in
the last three days? The government have conceded nothing and that is
the problem of being in opposition, you don't have the votes because you
are not in government. It's hardly surprising that if the government is
obdurate and the government is not trying to reconcile the whole of the
country and bring it back together and simply says, no, we will do it
our way, no matter what anyone says then of course that is what happens.
What did Jeremy Corbyn mean by tweeting that the real fun -- fight
starts now? What do you does he mean? You have a great repeal Bill
Cumming and there are hundreds of pieces of legislation that need to
go through Parliament -- and we will scrutinise them and make sure that
the government cannot simply take us into the sort of deregulated
offshore tax haven that many of us You said if the government wants to
do that you as the opposition cannot stop them. What can you change, what
will you do in terms of effecting change in the government as the
Labour opposition that you have not been able to do up till now? We are
a Parliamentary democracy and we have to speak out when we believe
what the government is doing is not in the best interests of the British
people. That is what we have done and will continue to do. You are
right, on our own, we cannot win the vote. I hope there may be members of
the Conservative Party who will see the rationality of some things we
are putting forward and who will then choose in their conscience to
vote with us. I am not sure it will be the case, because clearly the
government has the numbers. Diane Abbott, Shadow Home Secretary,
tweeted Tory Brexit will be a disaster and voted for it. There are
two competing principles. One, and I also believe leaving the EU is
really going to be potentially disastrous for the British economy,
but... Wide not vote against it? Because of the principle of
respecting democracy in a referendum and the British people have been
given the opportunity to vote. It ill behoves politicians to say we
know better than you do, you are ignorant about these matters, we
understand the economy, we understand World Trade Organisation
rules, get back in your box, we will do it our way. If I were on the
winning side of the referendum and the government said, we know you
won, but we will ignore that, I would have been furious. My best
judgment, which is what I owe my constituents as a member of
Parliament, is that if that had happened and we turned round and
refuse to accept the will of the people, people would have been
outraged and we may have seen an upsurge in hatred and violence. That
is a passionate defence of what you did. Why did you fail to persuade
Clive Lewis, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, and 49 others to vote the
same way? I regret that. I know that Clive wrestled with that and
accepted the Democratic principle on the second reading. By the third
reading he felt we should have been able to move the government forward,
that is what he wanted to do. He respected democracy by voting for a
second reading. It then went through without a single amendment being
accepted by the government. They were intransigent. At that point,
Clive thought he could not vote for that. Life is not black and white.
We have to understand members of Parliament have been wrestling with
these competing principles and they have tried to do what in all honesty
they believe is the best for their constituents. Do you have sympathy
for Barry Gardner's arguments? What amuses me looking back on it as a
former whip, is to see how successful the Conservative whipping
has been, that because there are differing views on the conservative
side, only three Conservatives did not vote with the government and
about 50 Labour MPs voted against the three line whip imposed by
Jeremy Corbyn. One party is much more publicly divided than the
other. It must be curious for knew to be in the lobby joshing shoulders
with Bill Cash. All your old friends. Did you feel tainted, or
OK? I do not feel that being with people taints me. What I feel is
very sad, because I feel that our country is going to become more
divided. I think people will be less kind to one another as a result of
this. It deeply troubles me. Parliament has embarked on a course
that will not just make is poorer, but also I think we will be less
kind. There is something about society that is worrying. It is
alarming rhetoric. I was Remained that when the decision was made I
thought we have to go along with this. My instinct is now we have to
really go along with this which means supporting it and going with
it and what you are trying to give us now is going along with it, yet
there will be agony down the line. Barry Gardner, is that why you
called for Labour MPs to abstain? Did you call for that? I never
discuss what we say at Shadow Cabinet. Did you call for an upsurge
in? -- and abstention. I do not discuss what we say in Shadow
Cabinet so we have a full and frank discussion. I understand exactly
what you are saying about now we have to go with it, which is why I
voted for it, but we need to try to shape it in the right way, so that
the 48% of the population who felt it was wrong, do not feel
marginalised. That is why I think Jeremy said the fight Naz starts, on
individual pieces of legislation. We have to ensure we shape it in the
best way -- the fight now starts. There is no renegotiation on offer.
It is as it was promised, a vote on the deal or you fall on to WTO
rules. You do not think any more than I that is a real choice the
government is offering. I am not commenting on choice, I am asking
the concession. Precisely what I am saying is the government is trying
to pretend it is giving Parliament a choice when it is not. That is
dishonest. The way they have dealt with the amendments during the past
three days has been equally dishonest. When can we expect a
reshuffle? That is a matter above my pay rate. It cannot be above your
pay grade, you are in the Shadow Cabinet! Jeremy Corbyn dismissed
rumours about setting a date on his departure. Saying it was fake news.
Have people discussed it? Can you rule out there was any discussion
about a date on his departure? I can tell you for certain, I have not
been party to those discussions, I know nothing about them. There have
been rumours, they have been in the press, but as far as my first-hand
knowledge is concerned, absolutely not. Jeremy Corbyn said he did not
want Donald Trump to be allowed into the UK. I Shadow trade Secretary, is
that wise? We have to have good relations with America. We have to
ensure we have a good trade relationship with America. Including
getting him into the country? As many people think, I think President
Trump's remarks have been thoroughly objectionable, and his policies,
what he's doing in terms of refugees... Should he be allowed
into the country? Of course he should be allowed in. What honours
he is allowed when he is here is different. Jeremy Corbyn said he
should not be allowed in, you disagree with him on that.
And while we're talking about Brexit, in recent weeks
you may have noticed we've been trying to make sense
of some of the words, phrases and acronyms that
politicians use when talking about our exit from the EU.
Many of them we don't even understand -
Here's our Adam with his third and final guide
Here's what you need to know to understand the script.
It stands for Department for Exiting the European Union,
headed by the Brexit Secretary, David Davis.
300-plus staff examining the Brexit effect on 50 different sectors of
the economy, while preparing the UK's negotiating position.
Article 50 sets out the process for a
Except it doesn't, it's just an outline of the process
And it says it all has to happen in a two-year period.
And if you're interested, Article 49 is the process
A transitional period is a sort of halfway house between the UK
finalising its departure and realising its full post-Brexit
It's a way of buying a bit more time to sort out particularly
complicated aspects of our membership.
Remain campaigners like it because it's not really like
Leave campaigners don't like it because it's not really like
Theresa May wants the UK to have free trade agreements with the
EU and other countries around the world post-Brexit.
They are bespoke deals to reduce the barriers to
and recognising each other's regulations.
This one is my favourite, because it's amazingly
If the EU negotiates a deal that also affects policy areas that
are controlled by individual member countries, then
it is deemed to be a mixed agreement, which means it has
usually by votes in every parliament.
The Great Repeal Bill is a piece of legislation promised by
the government, which will cancel the original piece of legislation
that took us into the EU in the first place.
It will simultaneously copy and paste EU law into British
law, so that MPs can decide what measures to keep
It involves something called Henry VIII powers, as well.
And, trust me, that's a whole other movie.
And you can find the Daily Politics guide to the Brexit process
on our Twitter page, that's at 'Daily
And if you aren't on Twitter then Jo will send you a copy in the post.
I have been stuffing envelopes all morning. Handwritten!
You pay your council tax, we assume, so at the very least
you expect your local authority to empty your bins?
But the time between collections in some areas has been getting
longer, and a handful of areas in the UK now have to wait a month
Jenny Kumah's been out on one Welsh bin round to find out more.
Bin day here in Conwy in North Wales.
Recyclable waste, including food, paper and glass is
But a trial of three-weekly and monthly collections
People can get really worked up about the issue of rubbish,
especially when there are changes to bin collections,
and here in Conwy, the council is one
to move to a system where they will only collect general waste
The council says it's not just about saving money,
it's also about trying to get people to recycle more.
The council says it is a success, with initial figures showing a 15%
increase in recycling and a 28% drop in residual waste.
But it's not clear whether it's working for everyone.
There are six adults and several pets living here.
They say that, by bin day, they've got so much rubbish,
despite having extra bins to help them cope.
We have ashes from the fire going in in the winter.
Monday they will be coming to collect.
There are going to be bags piled on top.
We have paper, we put paper in the top.
The family argue they are recycling everything they can,
but Fiona admits she puts food in her black bin rather
In nearby Kimnel Bay, the local councillor isn't happy
that animal and some human waste products can end up in black bins
for several weeks before the monthly bin day comes round.
He has had numerous complaints from residents.
Overflowing bins, fly-tipping and problems with seagulls
Food waste is collected weekly, so there should
But you will have wrappers off takeaway, things like that,
so the actual smell of food odour will attract.
They will go looking, because of the smell.
The councillor responsible for bringing in the new service admits
For example, with helping young families access the weekly
But he denies there has been increased fly-tipping and vermin.
He argues that if people recycle properly, monthly
Landfill tax costs the taxpayer ?128 per tonne.
We need to get every recycling out of every residual bin.
Believe me, you will come back here in six, seven years
Wales is the only UK nation to set legally binding recycling targets,
and they are higher than those set by the EU.
Councils can be fined if they fail to deliver.
So monthly collections could become more widespread,
as the drive to get people to be more green gets more intense.
And we're joined now by the Conservative MP Jake Berry,
who's campaigning for a return to weekly bin collections,
and by the Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley,
welcome to both of you. It would seem most residents do want to see
regular bin collections. They don't want them to be scrapped. Why are
they wrong? I don't think they are necessarily wrong but it is the
wrong approach and we are going to tackle recycling we are facing.
There has been a great increase in recycling rates, until last year,
where it plateaued and now it is falling. We need better education
and give clear recycling systems. In South Oxfordshire they have
alternate collections, recycling and food waste and refuse the following
week. There is regularity and they have a huge recycling rate. What do
you say to that? I agree we should all recycle more but this is an
issue in places like Lancashire or places where people have no back
garden and living back-to-back terraces and have the rubbish bin
under their front window for two weeks without being emptied. If you
have a young baby who is going through three or four nappies a day,
and you have it by your front door for two weeks, or a month, it is
pretty unpleasant. On the issue of all recycling, some local
authorities, including Blackbird, the original plan was to reduce the
size by two thirds of the non-recyclable bin but still ended
it every week and I think that is the right solution for households
across the UK -- Blackbird. What is underlying this move from local
authority level are cut from central government. It's not about boosting
recycling. Guys, you talked about a crisis in recycling. What do you
mean? We are meant to hit 50% by 2020 and we had been on the up until
about two years ago and then it plateaued and now it is going down.
Why do you think that is happening? Because of the cuts from central
government. We look at the waist resource action plan which has been
cut by 50% which means there is money not going into education and
how we can develop a circular economy and used waste material as
at commodity. Local authority budgets make no difference to
people's ability or desire to recycle. Responsible people want to
recycle. But it is a basic service that every local authority should
offer, to say we should bin once a week. It's all very well for those
with large gardens to talk about the bins at the end of the lawn being
emptied once a month. If you live in a small house with a big family,
it's frankly disgusting and unacceptable to have the bin not
emptied. But with more recycling you will boost the recycling rate. Look
at the budgets and say we can cut this. We see this every street,
every week. They empty food waste every week so why not emptied the
non-recyclable bin every week. Just give people a smaller bin but empty
it once a week. Back to recycling, what are we not recycling that we
should be recycling? Across the board. If you look at people's bins,
60 or 70% in bins on average could be cycle -- recycle. A bottle return
scheme would be a good way of addressing it. It's not just about
waste collection, it's reducing the amount of waste and the amount of
re-use we can heading to. The plastic bag levy, everybody said it
wouldn't work and we have cut billions of plastic bags and it's
worked like a dream. What about a bottle recycling scheme? But it
shows if you work with people rather than punishing them they are happy
to recycle. Local authorities in other areas take even more extreme
steps, and if you live in a rural property they are now refusing to
empty your bin unless you drag it a mile to the nearest collection
point. I think the local authorities need to listen. This is a core
service. You said it was nothing to do with cuts or central government
money, but Eric Pickles promised a fund to restore weekly bin
collections and it was quietly dropped because there wasn't enough
money to fund the fund. I think, unfortunately, Eric was too little,
too late. You could never say that about Eric Pickles. So many local
authorities had changed to a fortnightly collection and I think
people could live with fortnightly collections but it should be weekly.
But going onto monthly is frankly absurd. That is going far too far.
It is not absurd. The problem is that nobody likes change. That is
why Eric, speaking to the people, we will always have weekly, if we could
be making it work on a monthly basis, you have to cope with it. If
you can't cope with change and become unhappy. There is also the
question of different delivery trucks coming to pick up different
types of waste all the same time, as in on the same day. That surely
could be cut or modified so you did not have one coming to collect the
non-recyclable bin and coming to collect and so on. There has been a
lot of inefficiency in local government but good models like
Germany have 62% recycling rates, and South Korea is doing better than
we are in the recycling rates. They have efficient systems that are
clear. One of the problems with the different systems we have with local
authorities is with migrating populations you have different
schemes in different borrowers. Local authorities would prefer to
preserve their inefficient behaviours, sending bin lorries
different descriptions to different houses on several a week. Rather
than effect real change, which is to reduce the size of the bin and empty
it every week, the cans and bottles, batteries, all the things you can
recycle rather than take the difficult decision to say that the
way that we do it is wrong. They prefer to punish their own
residence. What would be wrong with doing what was suggested earlier,
that one week they come along and take away the recyclable stuff, and
the next week they come and take the stuff that isn't? Over time, you
could move some that isn't being recycled into the recycled as you
become more sophisticated. What would be wrong with that? There is
nothing wrong with it per se. But if you are sending a bin lorry to
people's houses every week, why not take away their non-recyclable
rubbish at the same time? Could you can't do it all together. People
want to know where they are. Is there something wrong with that? It
is working very well in South Oxfordshire. I think it's up to 62%,
the Germany level, because they have the regularity. People know where
they stand. They know what to separate and they have clear food
waste and recyclables. I am glad we have solved the problem. Job done.
You have got your weekly. Thank you very much.
Now, earlier in the show we talked about the mis-directed text messages
that landed the Conservatives on Surrey County Council in hot
They went recycled. But I bet they will be. -- they weren't recycled.
But it's not the first time that a rogue text,
e-mail or tweet has caused a political upset.
It's that moment you send a text message about a certain person to
someone else, but then realise you have sent it to that certain person
by mistake. And you cannot press cancel quick enough. Take Lucy
Powell, while chief of staff to Ed Miliband when he was Labour leader,
ranted about the ludicrous nonsensical, unreal opposition of
the party. It was a text message intended for a select few and it
went to, well, loads of people. Then there was Labour's John Woodcock who
tweeted to his 27,000 followers his hairy thoughts on one of Jeremy
Corbyn's PMQ 's performances -- swearing thoughts. He meant to send
it as a direct message, privately. The leader of the tweeting world,
Donald Trump doesn't seem bothered about being private. When he was
tweeting to his daughter, he was publicly proud. Just a shame he got
the wrong woman. That was a council worker from Brighton. Sometimes
blushes spared. In autumn 2007, just before the Tory conference a
conservative staff member wrote an e-mail about George Osborne's plans
to raise the threshold on inheritance tax and he sent it to
Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP, who is a totally different
person to Matt Hancock, George Osborne's chief of staff and who the
e-mail was presumably meant for. If leaked, it would have probably
persuaded Gordon Brown to call an early election that the Tories
didn't want to have. But the Lib Dem Mr Hancock replied to the sender,
simply saying, I think this is yours, and he kept Shrum. How very
honourable. There are the grace of God go I. Have you ever sent a
message to someone who should not have question a sweet message for my
wife Michelle. That went to the PRS Michelle Mone. Yes, the lingerie
woman? I won't ask exactly what she said -- you said, but I get the
gist. This is how this one happened. It is the first names now and you
might have lots of people called Nick and a few people called
Michelle and you can press the wrong one and it is too late. So what
should you do if you realise that you sent it incorrectly? What should
be the etiquette if you have made a big boo-boo? Sent in error. But in a
different life, things I would have liked to have said to you. That
might be too much information, but thank you. Should we make political
capital out of mistakes made by politicians? There is an American
politician whose reputation was enhanced when he sent a text message
saying he had laid the open air. He had actually paid to the open air,
but misspelt it -- the au pair. He was seen as a conservative
character, but his reputation rose as a result of this. It has
distracted me somewhat. She has lived a very sheltered life. What
about the whips? Do you think text in would be wise if you were sending
out group text messages and you were trying to coerce people?
Essentially, in life, you have to remember the Walter Cronkite rule,
never do anything, say anything write anything that you are not
prepared to see on the front of the New York Times. Do not put anything
in writing that you would regret. And the best whipping is done by
person-to-person contact, making sure you persuade your people and
you know them and to speak to them one to one. Yes, you don't want on
the local newspaper, then don't write it. What about what SAP? Group
messages. Again, people can forget there are a list of people in the
group so how careful you have to be? -- What'sApp. The problem is
nowadays we have things further down the text. You find you are sending a
whole history. There is a long thread. Once you get to the group
things, it just grows exponentially. So, say less. As Andrew does, just
tweet from the heart knowing that the message can be shared by anyone.
When it comes to Twitter, you are my role model. Absolutely. Which bit,
particularly? You don't need to probe, just do the quiz.
There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
The question was which peer responded for the government during
So, Gyles, what's the correct answer?
You have caught up with the thread. Do you have a clue? I will go for
Green. I'm afraid it is Lord Gardiner of Kimble. Is he the son of
the old Lord gardener? I don't know. He's not related to Barry Gardiner
either. The One O'Clock News is starting
over on BBC One now. I'll be on This Week
tonight with Liz Kendall, Matt Forde, Andy Parsons,
Liam Halligan, and Michael Portillo When author
Sir Terry Pratchett died,