19/06/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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?


Download Subtitles