19/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

One person has died and ten people have been injured after a van

ploughed into pedestrians outside a mosque in north London.

The attack is being treated as a terrorist incident.

A 48-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder

Theresa May has chaired the Government's emergency

Brexit Secretary David Davis arrives in Brussels for the start of formal

But has the Government's negotiating strategy changed since the election?

The police confirm that 79 people are now dead or presumed dead

Theresa May is due to chair a meeting of the taskforce

co-ordinating the Government's reponse.

But how damaged has she been by her handling

And with us for the whole of the programme today

are the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, and the Labour

First today, a man has died and ten people have been injured after a van

was driven into a group of worshippers outside

the Muslim Welfare House on Seven Sisters Road in north

According to eyewitness accounts, the alleged attacker was held down

by members of the public before being later arrested by the police.

This morning, the police confirmed that they're treating the incident

Here's how those on the scene described events unfolding.

There was a man laying down on the floor who had,

I think, a heart attack, and there were two, a couple

of people there, giving him CPR, trying to talk to him,

Within a minute, me and friends we were there, and within a minute,

And then there was people underneath the van.

And it was shocking, and then he came out

from the van, running, he was saying, "I want

to kill more Muslims, I want to kill more Muslims."

And then other people were running behind him,

we got him down to the ground, tackled him down to the ground,

we managed to make him down until the police came.

Neil Basu, senior counter-terrorism officer for the Metropolitan Police,

said the incident had "all the hallmarks"

No matter what the motivation for this attack proves to be,

This is being treated as a terrorist attack.

The Counter Terrorism Command is investigating.

This was an attack on London and all Londoners.

We should all stand together against extremists

From 21 minutes past midnight this morning,

police received a number of calls to Seven Sisters Road following

a van having collided with pedestrians.

Officers were in the immediate vicinity at the time

and as the attack unfolded, and they responded instantly.

Additional officers were on the scene within ten minutes.

One man as I said was pronounced dead at the scene.

Eight others are in hospital and two more were treated at the scene.

All the victims were from the Muslim community.

I would like to praise the police officers who immediately responded

and gave life-saving treatment at the scene.

But also very much those members of the public who assisted before

Let's talk to our correspondent Sima Kotecha who is at

I know you have been following this for several hours.

Can you bring us up to date? Here is a synopsis. We know this

attack took place just after midnight, a van rammed into a group

of Muslim worshippers, they were just coming out after doing their

nightly prayers when a van rammed into them.

Ten people were injured, eight of which were taken to hospital. One

person has died but it is not clear whether that fatality is down to the

attack or something else. Police are investigating. A

48-year-old Mike white man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted

murder. We have been speaking to locals, there has been a multi-faith

gathering, priests, vicars, imams, bringing the community together,

saying they are here to relate a message of solidarity and say they

are here to give people reassurance they will not be divided as a

community. Speaking to Muslims, some are very

angry. I have covered the last three attacks, speaking to Muslims up and

down the country. During that time, they have been saying to me, we feel

vulnerable, we feel under attack, these people committing these

attacks are allowing people to paint us all with the same brush. There is

that vulnerability coming through, and a feeling of anger and

frustration. You say faith leaders have been on

the streets at the scene of the attack, trying to comfort to people.

What about the political reaction? Such is the Communities Secretary

was here in little while ago, he went to the site where the van

rammed into those people coming he was talking to locals, speaking to

multi-faith leaders, saying, we have two come together. He said it makes

him happy to see people from different religions here today,

telling each other they love each other and care.

He said there would be extra security around mosques in the

country. We heard Amber Rudd say ?2.5 million

is available for extra security. Jeremy Corbyn is coming here around

1pm. He is the local MP. He sent a tweet he was shocked and saddened by

what had happened. We are expecting him here this afternoon.

There are rumours Theresa May might be here this afternoon but I must

stress they are just rumours at the moment.

Thank you. Theresa May chaired a meeting

of the Government's She left that meeting

a short time ago. It is a reminder that terrorism,

extremism and hatred take many forms, and our determination

to tackle them must be the same As I said here two weeks ago,

there has been far too much tolerance of extremism

in our country over many years, and that means extremism of any

kind, including Islamophobia. That is why this government will act

to stamp out extremist and hateful ideology,

both across society and on the internet, so it is denied

a safe space to grow. It is why we will be reviewing

our counterterrorism strategy, and ensuring that police

and security services And it is why we will establish

a new commission for countering extremism as a statutory body,

to help fight hatred and extremism in the same way

as we have fought racism. Because this extremism is every bit

as insidious and destructive to our values and our way

of life, and we will stop And here's what the Labour

leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is also the local MP,

had to say when he visited We have had some attacks

on Finsbury Park Mosque in the past. We have had some threats made to

the Muslim Welfare House and other An attack on a mosque, an attack

on a synagogue, on a church We have to protect each other's

faith, each other's way of life and that is what makes us a strong

society and community. We're joined now by Miqdaad Versi

from the Muslim Council Of Britain. And my two guests are still here.

Are you happy this is being treated with the seriousness it deserves?

Many were concerned it wouldn't be but that is. The Prime Minister is

taking it very seriously with a Cobra meeting, the Mayor of London

getting extra police to reassure Muslims concerned at their local

mosque. Amber Rudd coming out very forcefully.

This is a good first step. We have to recognise, however, many

Muslim communities have been talking about the rise in hate crime against

Muslims for many years. Unfortunately there has not been the

action we expected. What we want now is that there can be no tolerance

for this form of extremism wherever it comes from. Which has been

spreading far too much. Do you think there hasn't been

enough recognition of Islam phobia which has been going on in the past

through -- few years? The Prime Minister was right, during

the campaign when we had the attack on Manchester and on Borough market,

to say we will be intolerant of intolerance, innocent people who

have broken fast, going to pair, coming together to prepare in the

early hours before sunrise, being attacked, that is equally not

acceptable in our society. We must not leave any safe spaces for it. It

is far too easy. There are criminal elements who hijack the religion of

Islam, who attack innocent girls going to a concert in Manchester, it

is equally bad to have someone attacked the Muslim community. It is

far too easy to say sometimes we focus on one but not the other. The

Prime Minister is right to say this commission will focus on all types

of extremism. Has it come too late in terms of

facing up to people feeling angry in the Muslim community, feeling

vulnerable and under attack? We are having to deal with this.

This extremism issue is something the whole of Europe is dealing with,

not just the UK. The more we attack Daesh who had

been taken out of Iraq almost completely in the last few weeks,

the more they will lash out. The more you have captions people like

the English Defence League and Tommy Robinson.

We have to go after those just as hard.

Do you think Theresa May has dealt with this quickly and seriously in

the weight as I said it should be? We need to look at the context, the

way in which the tabloid press deal with this, they demonise the Muslim

community, and I welcome the comments about being intolerant of

intolerance, I would welcome intolerant of the tabloid media, who

have been absolutely shocking. This is another truly appalling incident

on the streets of London, and we have to do more to tackle that, the

intolerant of the way the gutter press demonise Muslim communities,

and it means reviewing the Prevent strategy, and it also means

reversing many of the funding cuts we have seen in public services,

which can help to address some of these issues. Youth services have

seen massive reductions, and it is not just about funding police

properly, although that does need to be done, but we need to look at

other public services. You have made a lot of points, let's deal with the

here and now, what about increased security outside mosques, is that

necessary? Many Muslim curve unities are very worried and feel unsafe to

some extent, they are worried that large numbers of people will be

attending, and that might result in being a potential target. Having

police on the street is something that might be very helpful and

reassure people. Sadiq Khan has done that very well. I would like to pick

up on a point that has been made earlier, many parts of the media

have really spread this kind of hate. We have talked about hate

speech, how it is an acceptable, not tolerated, and now we know that the

BBC and many others will not have Anjem Choudary and others on the TV,

despite having had them in the past. What about the same people on the

right? What about Douglas Murray, who on the show said that less Islam

is the answer to terrorism. Even within a show like this, giving a

platform to people like that, to spread their hate, is unacceptable,

and we should not tolerate it. Do you think they should be a

clamp-down on looking, -- looking at far right extremists. The murder of

Jo Cox was considered a terrorist incident by somebody who had signed

up to the Nazi ideology. My parents were immigrants to this country, and

they came because of the values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, rule

of law. Anyone who decides to preach hatred and extremism against those

values should be called out. At either extreme. But has it been done

enough? The point being made, has the Government's aye been taken off

the ball because of its focus on Islamic extremism? Has there been a

tendency to ignore what has been going on on the other side, on the

far right? I do not think there has, I think in the UK, if you look at

the difference between the UK and France, where the National Front has

done so well, we have effectively pulled the rug from under the

extremists. But the number of incidents has gone up dramatically

in the last few years. I don't disagree, and we have just heard

someone talking about the BBC, or other media outlets. We all have to

examine our conscience and content. If you put a headline out that

demonise is a particular part of our society that we care about, we have

seen rabbis and priests coming together today, what message are you

sending to those who could be radicalised on the right extreme or

the Islamism or the jihadism? That is only part of the answer, but if

that alone does not work, you need to look at the massive funding cuts,

I have already made his point, in relation to youth services, policing

and so on. I saw a security expert on Newsnight suggesting that not of

the constabularies, other than perhaps the Met, are geared up

enough in terms of tacklers -- tackling terrorism. But what about

dealing with the ideologies at source? You have mentioned cuts to

the police... The counterterrorism budget has been protected... There

was a security expert on Newsnight suggesting that none of the other

constabularies around the country is geared up. But look, it is not

enough, dealing with the source, but you can help to tackle that by

reversing some of these funding cuts, neighbourhood policing, as I

have mentioned, youth services. What about Prevent? Labour wanted to

review it, but many felt it did a good job. We have seen terrorism

incidents, and it puts far too much emphasis on the Muslim community,

and we have got to look much wider than that, clearly this appalling

incident yesterday is proof of that point. We have had people who said

that a lot of the work Prevent did, the de-radicalise is an strategy put

forward by the Government, has had a lot of success, but people have only

focused on the failures, do you accept that? There will always be

successes, but what is worth recognising is whether it is human

rights groups, free-speech advocates, United Nations, European

Union, Muslim organisations, the royal college psychiatrists, all of

these different groups saying that Prevent is not working or that there

are serious concerns about it. It is worth recognising, I am of the

opinion that Prevent needs to be reviewed, like David Anderson, the

previous reviewer of terrorism legislation, so let's have a view,

let's engage with Muslim communities, because we need to work

together. Should the Prime Minister go to the scene of this attack

today? I think she will go to the scene of the attack, Sajid Javid as

Secretary of State for communities went first thing this morning, I

think it is right to demonstrate to the Muslim community, in the month

of Ramadan, this is a sacred place, as she rightly pointed out. It is

right for her to be seen in solidarity with the Muslim

community. She should do more than just visit the scene, but they need

to be doing more, reviewing the things I have talked about. But you

would like to address the community. I think it is absolutely right. Very

much so. So today marks the start

of the formal negotiations on the UK leaving the EU,

with Brexit Secretary David Davis travelling

to Brussels to begin talks. He met Michel Barnier, and both men

promise they've positive tone to discussions.

But after Theresa May failed to secure a majority

in the general election, there have been calls

for the Government to water down its demands on Brexit.

Yesterday, Chancellor Philip Hammond,

who supported the Remain campaign, confirmed that the Government

would continue to seek to leave the single market

But he indicated that "some kind of transitional structures"

will be needed to smooth the UK's exit.

And while he said no deal would be "a very, very bad outcome,"

he said a worse outcome would be a deal

that is "deliberately structured to punish us."

For Labour, Shadow Brexit Secretary Kier Starmer

also ruled out remaining in the single market

but said the UK could stay in customs union.

And he refused to confirm which way Labour would vote

which would transfer existing EU law onto the UK statute books.

We are joined now from Brussels by the German MEP and chair

of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok.

He will be part of the EU parliaments negotiating team. Elmar

Brok, welcome to the Daily Politics, does the UK in your mind considered

Theresa May's negotiating position to have been weakened by the

election result in the UK? I think we would prefer to have a

strong government with a broad majority which would be able to do

compromises. We are afraid that the weak Prime Minister with a weak

government and a lack of authority will have more difficulties to do

proper compromises which we need to come to a successful end. What sort

of compromises are you talking about? , we have to talk about the

right of citizens, about British obligations, about the Irish issue,

but then we have to find a way to negotiate a free trade agreement,

because Britain until now has said that they do not want to stay in the

internal market and the customs union, and for such a negotiation

for a free-trade agreement, is very difficult, which as many

complications, we need to have compromises. We want constructive

solutions, non-Brexit is the really hard Brexit, back to WTO, this would

be very costly for all of us, but more for Britain, because of the

different size of the two entities. But do you agree with Chancellor

Philip Hammond that there would be a transitional period where the UK, to

some extent, would remain in the EU while that transition is going on,

so he said there would be more of a slope than a cliff edge coming out

of the EU? I think that is true, we negotiate first the divorce

agreement, which must be ready until the 29th of March 2019. This, for

example, a free-trade agreement will need a little bit more, and in order

to avoid hard Brexit we will need a transitional arrangement until this

is really finished and negotiated and ratified in parliaments, and

therefore I think this idea of a transitional period is also part of

the negotiation guidelines of the European Union, and I welcome this

idea by Philip Hammond. You talked a little bit about the fact that the

EU would have preferred to be negotiating with a strong leader,

someone who had a convincing win in the election on either side - does

that results change the strategy of the EU in these negotiations, are

they going to change their stance? No, we have no reason for that. 27

amber countries, Parliament, commission and Council have agreed

on the mandate, and I have never seen such a broad understanding

between the different players, and we wait now for the British

position, which we do not know yet so precise as we have publicised it,

and we hope that we will find here the basis that we can start the

negotiation point by point. But you make it sound, Elmar Brok, as if

there will be a change from the position that the government here

has set out, Theresa May position in the Lancaster House macro speech,

which is that the UK will be the single market and the customs union,

and there will be an end to freedom of movement, so in that sense,

changed. No, that has not changed - if that is the real point for the

negotiations. But we have so many voices in the last days and weeks in

the United Kingdom, discussing the way of the customs union and so on,

that this might have led to confusion. But nothing of that has

been put on us, because our position is ready, and we wait for the

position of the United Kingdom in the negotiations. Too many voices,

Elmar Brok has said, in the UK - that has led to confusion, do you

agree? Yes, I do, and I will tell you for why. In the last Parliament,

on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we had an inquiry into what would

happen if there was no deal, and the last commissioner came before the

committee, and I asked him, what should we do? This was an arch

Remainer, and he said we must get behind the Prime Minister and to

allow her to negotiate on our behalf and have a formal position that we

all agree on. I am really saying that Labour are in confusion about

that... We will come to Labour, I am talking about within Tory ranks. I

am talking about Parliament, this is a national interest issue now,

entering the negotiation, we must align behind our negotiating team to

get the best deal, otherwise our interlocutor is on the other side

watching, and they will exploit any weakness or confusion that there may

be. So my plea to Labour colleagues is get behind the Prime Minister in

the national interest. The national interest is not being served by the

Prime Minister. My theory is that she is happy to walk away with no

deal and turn Britain into an deregulation offshore taxation, and

that is what we have got to guard against. What has given you the

evidence to think that? Look at the ideology that underpins where the

Tory party are coming from, look at what they have done over the 18

years in government, look at the way they deregulated the labour market,

financial services - we have manufacturing... Labour also

deregulated the financial sector. They bought into that consensus. We

did make mistakes, yes. What about the customs union? Yesterday, Keir

Starmer, representing Labour in terms of the Brexit negotiations,

said we could remain in the customs union, is he right? We have got to

negotiate the best possible deal in terms of ordinary people, it may do,

but we have to make sure that anything that we negotiate works in

the interests of ordinary people, not the kind of people at the top of

society, the 0.1% at the top will have done incredibly well out of

neoliberalism. Can I come back to this confusion on the Labour side?

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell said we would leave the single

market in the customs union, Keir Starmer says we can, doesn't Labour

need to have a clear voice on this? We will hold the Government to

account, we will push for the best possible deal... Everybody wants the

best possible deal. Are we in or out of the customs union?

In the end we had to secure tariff free access to the market. We have

Toyota, a big investor, one of the biggest we have seen in this

country, the danger is we will have to start paying tariffs on the goods

we sell... So, it sounds like... The Great

Repeal Bill, all these regulations which is do all these good things...

We need to reassure workers in our country.

With the trade union act! Are you going to support that repeal

bill? We will come back to you on that.

Can I just say, could the UK leads the single market and still say in

the customs union? There are limitations for the UK.

They cannot have every country in the trade agreement, some agreements

have to be fulfilled and if they are ready to do so we are happy.

The German Foreign Minister seemed over the weekend to suggest a

reduced jurisdiction for EU judges over Britain and continued access to

the single market, in return for some freedom of movement in the UK.

Is that a viable option do you think?

I think I have not totally understood what it means, half of it

and half of it not. If you have legal jurisdiction you must have

full legal jurisdiction, I do not see how it would work in the

practical sense. If you want to be a member of the

internal market you have to fulfil the conditions for everyone.

Switzerland and Sweden, except free movement of labour. If there is no

reason to do so we will have problems with the integrity of the

internal market which is of utmost importance.

Does there need to be an exit bill and if so how much should it be in

your mind? I do not know, I would not call it a

bill. It is a divorce agreement. When

European civil servants have worked for 45 years for the UK, then we

believe it is only fair that the UK takes the share of the pensions of

these people, for example. If we have decided certain projects

together to finance it, then everyone should take its share for

that. I think it is only fair. How much it will be is another question.

He has a point, why should the UK pay up for that share of

obligations? Clearly obligations are there, we

haven't said we won't. But, when you start spinning numbers like 100

billion that the UK would pay, I don't know where that Amber comes

from. We have to look at the real numbers. At the end of the day,

negotiation is about making sure we address our obligations to our

partners. We remain European. We inject 60

billion of demand into the EU 27. You agree a price has to be paid.

Some in the Conservative Party sake there is no legal obligation to pay

up. But you agree there is some obligation.

If we made that commitment, we need to make sure the numbers are robust

and we can fulfil our obligations. Should the Government position now

be able sign up to the suggestion the divorce bill is settled first?

I would like to make sure we settle the issue of European citizens

living in the UK. As far as British citizens living in Europe.

Then we can look at the financial obligations, as well as, as the

Spanish Foreign Minister suggested, look at free and unfettered access

to the single market for the UK. We can do that in good faith. What

is more important, the economy or reducing immigration?

We need to take control of our borders and our laws, and make sure

our economy remains open and robust. JL la has announced further 5000

jobs in the UK. They wouldn't be doing that unless they think this

Government can negotiate a good deal in the EU. I think we will forget

behind them. But we need to honour our

obligations. There are people... People in the Conservative Party say

we shouldn't pay anything but if we are going to get a decent deal, then

we have obviously got to honour our obligations.

Thanks you very much. I'm sure we will speak to you again over the

next few years! Meet the obligations, then get a

good deal. That is what Michel Barnier once. --

wants. As we've been discussing,

formal negotiations on the UK's exit from the EU start today

between the EU's Michel Barnier and Brexit Secretary

David Davis in Brussels. Tomorrow, Chancellor

Phillip Hammond and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney

make their annual Mansion House speeches on the state

of the British economy. On Wednesday, it's the State

Opening of Parliament which outlines the Government's

agenda for the year. there's a European Council

meeting in Brussels, issues including migration,

security and Brexit. We're joined now by Laura Hughes

from the Daily Telegraph Welcome to both of you. Laura

Hughes, Brexit negotiations, will David Davis signal a softening in

turn to his European counterparts? He already has, today is about the

talk about talks, building trust, becoming good friends. We have seen

weeks of tension between both parties but today is about coming

together to make this work. The context is interesting, David

Davis thought he would be walking into negotiations with Theresa May

behind him and a huge majority. He doesn't have that. People in

Brussels are worried what will happen to our Prime Minister. As you

said, we are seeing Germany softening the tone, saying, let us

give them a bit more than what we would have done, otherwise Theresa

May will come under serious pressure from both sides and if she leaves

the whole talks could crumble. Her leadership is under pressure for

a variety of reasons, how badly does Theresa May need success in these

talks? I don't think early success as a

concept is available. Both sides will be keen to emerge from today

and signal there is an accommodating culture.

The reality is, Theresa May went into this process thinking it would

be a continuity narrative from before the election. There is now

known strategic concept from the UK side.

She asked for a bigger mandate and didn't get one.

Specific questions about membership of the single market, customs union,

jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, there is no majority in

parliament, so it is not clear Theresa May has the support of

cabinet. Ultimately, we talk about success in this country as a

presentational idea, the idea that the Prime Minister's authority will

be upheld. Is there authority in the UK to do a deal that will stand up?

It seems clear from the outside there isn't.

Let us turn our attention to Grenfell Tower, shocking pictures of

the weekend of inside the building. The police have issued a statement

today saying 79 people are feared dead, presumed dead. How much will

this tragedy come to define Theresa May's Government?

We saw from Wednesday morning she was under serious pressure. Images

of Jeremy Corbyn, the Queen and Prince William going there before

the Prime Minister did. She didn't meet with the victims. At

the weekend she said the initial response was not good enough. Why

did it take until Saturday for her to sit down with victims to come to

that conclusion. If it wasn't good enough in the beginning, she would

have known that. It doesn't look good. People are saying she lacks

humanity. In terms of human response, people

have said it was found wanting. What do you think is going to be the

impact in terms of changes to regulation and the reviews, and

looking at the buildings that are still the high-rise tower blocks

that could still be covered in cladding that may be combustible?

There aren't two political challengers, the performance element

of Theresa May showing empathy, a one track issue.

And the broader question, the apparatus of conservative ideology

seems to be unravelling. The regulation, health and safety

culture, that this was an obstruction to the economy. The idea

of stripping away regulations seems to have been exposed as introducing

risk to society. People will say, hang on, what was the system that

was keeping people safe in their homes? We will now be looking at

buildings, school buildings, high-rises where people are living,

questioning whether our approach to Government and the state has been

negligent. Theresa May has a bigger problem than whether she can

demonstrate warmth with individuals on the ground.

The police have confirmed that 79 people are missing, presumed dead,

Commander Stuart Cundy also said that all criminal offences are now

being considered, as detectives, fire-safety experts and the Health

and Safety Executive recover evidence into how last week's fire

started and, crucially, why it spread so quickly.

a minute's silence was held in memory of the victims.

For the victims of the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.

Theresa May has faced criticism for her response to the fire, or lack of

it. Is that criticism fair? I am an

immigrant to this country. Many of those living in Grenfell Tower will

have been from from North African, Syrian immigrant community, who came

to the UK because of all its great values.

The Prime Minister was right to say the reaction wasn't good enough.

People getting ?10 on the ground, who have lost everything.

The speed at which the whole machine of Government, local or central,

wasn't up to speed. But, turning our Prime Minister into

a human punchbag just because she doesn't cry in front of people. You

heard from the Reverend who went to see the victims, she welled up... It

is wrong to politicise this. Let us get the evidence, there is a

criminal investigation. Government says that particular cladding was

illegal in the UK for buildings as tall as Grenfell Tower...

We will come onto that. You said you think it is unsightly

for her to be used as a punchbag. Even she admitted it was a

lamentable response, ?10 offered to people who had lost everything.

The tower looks like a war zone, devastating. The response as she

admitted was too slow in terms of an emergency fund and offering for

people to be rehoused. Jeremy Corbyn, even the Queen

managed to go down personally to empathise, just to be seen to give

some sort of solidarity with the people who were affected.

Why couldn't Theresa May do that? Well, she went to the site. She

talked to the amazing fire men and women who were the first responders.

She has put into place a response now, ?5,500 for each and every

family, immediately available, housing within three weeks. It

wasn't good enough at the beginning. Of course it wasn't! I am not going

to insult your intelligence to say that, of course it wasn't. Questions

have to be asked, why isn't that we did not respond in the same way as

to flooding disasters in our country for these poor souls? Also, the

image that could well stick to the Conservative Party for some time is

the majority did back drop people, many of them immigrants, dying in

one of the richest boroughs of the country. We need to understand what

happened, why a refurbishment can take place in such a building that

can make it such a fire hazard when millions of pounds were spelt on the

building, but not properly. Do you accept that there has been some sort

of politicisation? It is a political issue too, but has Labour exploited

this. This is symptomatic of a broken system, poor people died in

that horrendous incident because of a political system which has

systematically failed to invest in our public services. I was calling,

in 2011, for sprinkler systems to be installed in high-rise blocks. But

your own government... Let him finish and we will come back to you.

We have a broken system where, you know, the private sector and the

Conservative Party see public services as a cash cow. How can we

make money out of these public services? I don't think anyone is

making money in that sense. The point is that we see privatisation,

not run by local authorities, why wasn't it invested in? Because it

has been external eyes to an arm's length organisation, and they are

penny-pinching. -- externalised. It is all down to this obsession with

neoliberalism which was brought in by Margaret Thatcher. Nadhim Zahawi,

to use your words, is this a broken society... A broken system. Based on

an ideology associated to the Conservatives? 2015, the

Conservative government launched a cutting red tape initiative, which

boasted cutting fire regulation is. David Cameron said the Conservative

government would kill the health and safety culture for good. As your

party's obsession with the need to cut red tape come what may put lives

in let's get one facts straight, so that we can have a proper discussion

about this issue. The people running this building was the local tenant

management association made up of residents and councillors. These are

local people who should have done their job properly. That is

incredibly unfair! The local authority is also responsible. But

the point here is what happened... There were blogs about the tenant

manage organisation not doing its job properly... By question was

about the Conservative obsession about cutting red tape? There is a

difference between red tape that is stopping businesses doing their work

and a difference between us wanting to cut fire safety. You have closed

fire stations, let's be honest about this. York government did not follow

through on sprinklers... We didn't close fire stations, like you have

been doing. We can have a two and fro about this... Let's talk

about... It is not true about us cutting fire safety. What about

these bring the you talked about it, the Labour government not act

quickly enough to review building regulations. -- what about these

sprinkler systems? This is talking about the Lakanal House inquiry, the

Government ignore the regulations. There was an earlier report that

said similar things, both governments, Labour and

Conservative, have failed. Why weren't the systems fitted

retrospectively? The Government said all councils were advised to do so

after a bad fire in Camberwell in 2013. These are the sort of

questions the inquiry must look into. Why is the recommendation that

any building over a particular height, sprinklers would make a

difference, why didn't the Labour government not react to it? We will

find that out very quickly. Is it to do with the culture of cost-cutting?

I do not think that is where it comes from. If you look at the early

evidence that has come out, it is marginal, the numbers, between what

the cladding... If people who were rich were living in that flat, they

would have had the sprinkler system, and they would not have died. This

is a class issue, it seems to me, where poor people are victimised and

cast aside. You say that Labour are not exploiting this, not trying to

turn this into a class war, but your Shadow Business Secretary said

Bernard neoliberalism, not poor people. So you agree with him? I do.

Do think that is appropriate? Neoliberalism is the problem, it has

got far worse in the last seven years, this culture that we have

spoken about, cutting red tape. I used to work in the building trade

is, I nearly died and a building site, but the Conservative Party

wants to get rid of health and safety because it betters business.

They will external eyes wherever they can, privatise... This idea of

arm's-length organisations, all of these powers given to them, to this

management company, does it have to stop now. I was a councillor in

Wandsworth for three terms, and I think it is a good idea to have

tenants managing their own businesses, but you have got to

manage it properly. The blogs was saying that the TMO were not

actually... You have to take responsibility. Some of these

organisations were set up by Labour, and the current Labour MP actually

sat on the board of the management company. These arm's-length

organisations, lots of organisations were set up as a way of accessing

additional financing, and we need to get back to simple local authority

houses... If this was run by the Council, the chances of this... We

will never know. When they were run by local authorities, we saw decent

investment going into our housing, and we didn't have the crisis that

we now have across the country under the Conservatives, we have seen a

culture where they look at it and say, how can we make money out of

it? A vice I must let Nadhim Zahawi answer that. That is absolutely not

true, this is the ugly part of this tragedy, people going out and

spinning lies to pursue their political... It is not a spin! To

let him finish. Chris, your manifesto was to nationalise

everything. Your leader's hero is Hugo Chavez, everything there has

crashed, and if you are sick in Venezuela, you die, because there is

no medicine. By spending and spending and nationalising

everything... Nobody is saying nationalise everything. Gentleman!

Gentlemen, we have to end it. It should be about public service, not

private profit. Now, could identity cards help keep

us safe from terrorist incidents, An ID card scheme was introduced

by the last Labour government but then dropped by the incoming

coalition government in 2010. But former Labour Home Secretary

Charles Clarke ID cards have always

been controversial. But I think they're

just plain common sense. Good morning,

my name's Charles Clarke, I've come to apply

for a voluntary ID card, please. Here at CitizenCard, they've been

issuing voluntary ID cards - often for young people

to act as proof of age - To date, 2.2 million people have

applied for one of their cards. We already have a large number

of identity cards They help us travel, to work,

to get into our workplaces, to be able to cross borders,

to be able to access our finance details so that only we can get

to our bank accounts. We've got a whole range of different

types of identity cards already. And they would help

with immigration, so we can be confident that everyone in this

country is entitled to be here, everyone using our NHS

is entitled to use it, everyone getting a social security

payment is entitled to receive it, and that everyone voting

in our elections The police and security services

fighting organised criminals, like people traffickers and drug

dealers, and terrorist networks like those who committed

the appalling attacks on our cities in recent weeks, need to be

able to prevent them using false or stolen identities

in preparing their crimes. Our identity is

our most precious possession. We should do everything that we can

to protect it. A system of national

identity registration based on our own individual

physical characteristics, and using the most

up-to-date technology, Your card, sir.

Thank you very much indeed. It looks great, even the photograph.

Thanks very much. Theresa May was wrong to abolish

the identity card scheme in 2010. It was her first act

as Home Secretary. We need to re-establish

the national identity scheme And Charles Clarke is in the studio,

welcome back to the Daily Politics. When ID cards were introduced,

hugely controversial, they were scrapped by the coalition

government, what makes you think they are less controversial now? I

am sure they are still very controversial, and they are

controversial because although people can see many benefits, people

are worried about civil liberties side of it, and that comes from the

right and the left, concerned that somehow our civil liberties are put

up thread. I don't think that is the case. I think ensuring we can

protect our identity against identity fraud, against all kinds of

efforts to take away our identity, and the police and security

services, I think, gain from having the capacity to stop the identity

theft which gangs of various kinds used to prosecute their task. How

much support do you think they have? I haven't got that any recent

polling, but it was always quite large, and then when we legislated

for it, the majority of people, but it at the opposition within some

parts of the Labour Party, and some parts of the Conservative Party.

Were you deeply opposed? I was, I think there are civil liberties

issues and concerns, which Charles has identified, but I don't think it

will work, frankly. I don't think the cards would prevent the kind of

horrendous incidents that we have seen. Why not? Because the

terrorists were home-grown, the fact that they have an identity card is

not going to prevent them hiring a van and mowing into people on

Westminster Bridge. Chris is right, they are not a silver bullet. Some

people claim that if you brought them in, you could stop all terror

attacks of the kind we have seen. I have never thought that is true, but

what I do think is that it makes it more difficult for criminal

organisations, not just terrorists, but also drug dealers and people

traffickers, to be able to travel around the world, which is what they

do, with impunity, so I don't argue, just to be clear, that if you bring

this income you can solve all these problems. I do think it is an

additional weapon. What was your view at the time? Was Theresa May

Rob it was before my time. I have a couple of questions for Charles, one

is, they have got ID cards in France, and it hasn't helped deal

with the terrorism problems in that country. We have got biometric

passports now, technology getting better and better, so why try to

replicate a double ID card? I think the cost of the time was about ?1

billion that you had earmarked for this project, wouldn't we be better

off spending ?1 billion in a better way? Well, not everybody has

passports. There are elements of using the passport scheme to issue

the ID cards. The cost wasn't very substantial in the end, it cost me

?25 for that card. The total cost of 1 billion was before you took out

the income you got from it. But the main reason for the ID cards scheme

was to enable you to have, instead of all the types of ID cards that

you now have in your wallet, and in your pocket at this very minute, a

simpler system to be able to understand how we can protect the

data that is so important to all of us.

I can't see how another layer would actually...

It becomes a replacement rather than another layer.

Can I ask for your response whether you feel the Government response

this morning has been serious and quick enough to what has happened in

Finsbury Park Mosque mark they have given public announcements which are

clear, I am not convinced the commission on its gyms and will make

any difference on the process. -- commission on extremism.

The more serious issue is whether the Government had already weakened

our capacity to combat the terrorists we saw in Manchester and

London bridge. That is a more serious aspect.

Theresa May as Home Secretary didn't only stop the ID system, she got rid

of the control order regime... I am going to have to stop you

there. Thank you. That's all for today,

thanks to our guests. What makes you two different

from each other?