09/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

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,


Download Subtitles