:00:38. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:43.The UK's five biggest business lobby groups call for an urgent Brexit
:00:44. > :00:47.transition deal that mirrors existing arrangements,
:00:48. > :00:50.or risk Britain losing jobs and investment.
:00:51. > :00:55.A government minister says the only way of dealing
:00:56. > :00:57.with British Islamic State fighters is to kill them
:00:58. > :01:03.Does this represent a toughening of the Government's line?
:01:04. > :01:08.The Mayor of London introduces a new charge on the most polluting
:01:09. > :01:11.cars, and says poor quality air is causing a "health crisis".
:01:12. > :01:17.And - should we tax rich property owners who keep their houses empty?
:01:18. > :01:28.One Daily Mail columnist argues it is time for radical action.
:01:29. > :01:31.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
:01:32. > :01:33.of the programme today are the Conservative
:01:34. > :01:35.MP Johnny Mercer and the Labour MP Preet Gill -
:01:36. > :01:40.First today, is the Government going to reduce the six-week wait
:01:41. > :01:45.time for universal credit claimants to get their first payment?
:01:46. > :01:49.Yesterday, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, described
:01:50. > :01:53.the wait time as "grotesquely ignorant" - but the Government says
:01:54. > :01:57.the scheme has been working well in pilot areas.
:01:58. > :02:00.Well, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Debbie Abrahams
:02:01. > :02:01.was on the Sunday Politics at the weekend.
:02:02. > :02:04.She was asked why Labour were only calling for a pause
:02:05. > :02:06.in universal credit, and not planning to
:02:07. > :02:22.Because we always agreed with the principles around simplifying the
:02:23. > :02:28.social security system and also ensuring that work pays. However
:02:29. > :02:35.there are a number of fundamental flaws and on top of that the cuts.
:02:36. > :02:38.We have also had administrative issues, so we are calling for a
:02:39. > :02:49.pause. Labour backs the idea of Universal
:02:50. > :02:58.Credit in principle, there was a Commons vote last week to pause it
:02:59. > :03:03.and it was won by Labour but that had no binding effect, so what can
:03:04. > :03:08.Labour do now but are we the fact that we secured a debate and then a
:03:09. > :03:14.vote in the Commons has been really important. In what way? Because I
:03:15. > :03:19.think it gave the government the opportunity to listen to real case
:03:20. > :03:25.studies. It talks about pilots but those with single people, not
:03:26. > :03:28.families. I raised the concern about my constituent who has a shortfall
:03:29. > :03:34.in housing benefit, she has had briefly to his telling her that she
:03:35. > :03:39.has been offered different payments. At least in the legacy benefits,
:03:40. > :03:44.when one was stopped, you still carried on getting the other
:03:45. > :03:48.benefit, and in this case you. Don't about half of people on universal
:03:49. > :03:55.verdict are reliant on advanced payments. I understand that example,
:03:56. > :04:04.but I ask again how will Labour halt this process? Look, we've had a vote
:04:05. > :04:09.and I think lots of people felt that the party in power needs to come and
:04:10. > :04:13.tell the Commons and the House in respect of the democracy that we
:04:14. > :04:17.have here what it is going to. Do and I think a lot of people on the
:04:18. > :04:22.other side of the House agree that we need to pause it in order to fix
:04:23. > :04:28.it. When are you expecting the government to heed your warning to
:04:29. > :04:31.shorten the waiting time? I'm not asking them to pause and fix, I
:04:32. > :04:37.don't think that would be the right thing to do. Are you asking them,
:04:38. > :04:42.though, to shorten the waiting time? There is an element of this which is
:04:43. > :04:46.out of kilter with the modern caring Conservative Party and that is the
:04:47. > :04:51.seven-day wait which is built in. And I think we've got to be
:04:52. > :04:56.realistic. People getting paid in arrears is more like being in work
:04:57. > :05:00.and a lot of people receiving this benefit will be in work so I agree
:05:01. > :05:03.with paying it in arrears but there is a seven-day wait which I do not
:05:04. > :05:06.think is necessary. I think it is too long and I think we should do
:05:07. > :05:14.something about it. So how long would you like to see it shortened
:05:15. > :05:17.to? I'm happy for it to be in arrears, like I said, that is the
:05:18. > :05:21.workplace environment... Should it go from six weeks to one months? I
:05:22. > :05:28.believe the seven-day wait should go and it should be a four week in
:05:29. > :05:31.arrears payment like any other job. Have you said that two the Prime
:05:32. > :05:35.Minister? What I say to the Prime Minister is a private conversation
:05:36. > :05:39.between me and. Her my view has not changed. Do you think the change
:05:40. > :05:43.will happen in the next few weeks? I have no idea whether it will change.
:05:44. > :05:48.I've said the government is listening, and actually the Prime
:05:49. > :05:52.Minister has said that - the government IS listening, we want to
:05:53. > :05:58.get this right. Do you think there should be a pause in the roll-out?
:05:59. > :06:03.No, I. Don't this is one of the best policy fighting tools that we have
:06:04. > :06:07.two renovate a system which did not work and encouraged people to be in
:06:08. > :06:14.state welfare and which in areas like mine has had a devastating.
:06:15. > :06:17.Effect so you're not going to get assistance from the other side of
:06:18. > :06:21.the House in terms of backing your calls for a pause, so it is
:06:22. > :06:27.difficult to see how you're going to enact that change the government
:06:28. > :06:30.persists with going ahead - would you like to see the Universal Credit
:06:31. > :06:36.increased? Absolutely, at the end of the day, the government heard at the
:06:37. > :06:45.debate how many errors exist in the current system... In terms of the
:06:46. > :06:47.payments that are made to people receiving Universal Credit? I think
:06:48. > :06:54.people should be able to receive them straightaway. I'm talking about
:06:55. > :06:57.the amount that they receive. Debbie Abrahams talked about increasing the
:06:58. > :07:03.amount that claimants receive - how much would you like it to be? It has
:07:04. > :07:08.to be whatever work pays. At the end of the day the government is saying
:07:09. > :07:12.that people have got savings that they should rely upon and that's why
:07:13. > :07:16.there is a delayed response. To many people are having to rely on food.
:07:17. > :07:21.Banks there are lots of areas in terms of how the money is worked out
:07:22. > :07:24.any that's the problem, that there are far too many areas which have
:07:25. > :07:26.been raised which the government does need to pause and fix, because
:07:27. > :07:31.it is their moral duty to do that. What happened next in this meeting
:07:32. > :07:36.of Emmanuel Macron with some At the end of the show,
:07:37. > :07:40.Johnny and Preet will give Now, it's another busy
:07:41. > :07:43.week in Westminster, so let's take a look at what's
:07:44. > :07:48.in store over the next few days. This afternoon, the Prime
:07:49. > :07:50.Minister will make a statement to MPs about last week's
:07:51. > :07:53.European Council meeting. No doubt she will be asked
:07:54. > :07:56.about leaks in the German press that she appeared "tormented"
:07:57. > :07:58.and "despondent" at a supposedly private dinner with
:07:59. > :08:03.Jean-Claude Juncker. And this afternoon,
:08:04. > :08:07.the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU,
:08:08. > :08:11.David Davis, will make a dash for Paris to meet
:08:12. > :08:13.the new French foreign secretary On Wednesday, David Davis,
:08:14. > :08:16.ever a busy man, will be back in Westminster to give
:08:17. > :08:19.evidence to the Commons select committee on progress
:08:20. > :08:22.in the negotiations. And of course, you can
:08:23. > :08:28.watching the weekly session of Prime Ministers' Questions right
:08:29. > :08:31.here on the Daily Politics with coverage from
:08:32. > :08:34.11.30 on Wednesday. Finally, on Thursday,
:08:35. > :08:36.it's the Daily Politics' highlight of the political calendar,
:08:37. > :08:38.the Westminster Dog Well, the Foreign Secretary has been
:08:39. > :08:44.making a speech on global Unsurprisingly, he was asked
:08:45. > :08:59.about the progress of Brexit talks. The reality is that we think, I
:09:00. > :09:05.certainly think that the Prime Minister in her Florence speech gave
:09:06. > :09:10.a fair account of how we want to proceed on citizenship, on finances,
:09:11. > :09:17.on rights and privileges, the UK has made what we think is a pretty good
:09:18. > :09:22.offer. I'm lad that at the council in Brussels, they seem more positive
:09:23. > :09:25.frankly than I thought they were going to be to judge by some of the
:09:26. > :09:32.anticipatory drum roll of that council. They have given a fair wind
:09:33. > :09:37.to the idea of themselves now discussing the new trade deal,
:09:38. > :09:41.however they want to proceed. I suggest humbly to our friends and
:09:42. > :09:42.partners in Brussels that now is the time to get on with it!
:09:43. > :09:45.To discuss that and more, I'm joined now from College Green by
:09:46. > :09:48.Kate McCann of the Daily Telegraph and Henry Mance of
:09:49. > :09:59.Kate McCann first of all, there's a lot to pick up from the last few
:10:00. > :10:03.days on Brexit, but what is the fallout do you think from the leaked
:10:04. > :10:09.dinner conversation between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker, where
:10:10. > :10:12.he is reported to have described Theresa May as begging for help?
:10:13. > :10:17.Well, I think at the back end of last week it looked like Theresa May
:10:18. > :10:20.had won the council so we came away from that conversation, which Boris
:10:21. > :10:22.Johnson said this morning the government was expecting to go quite
:10:23. > :10:28.badly thinking that actually some progress had been made. Angela
:10:29. > :10:32.Merkel was willing to walk and talk with Theresa May, but of course last
:10:33. > :10:36.night we have seen there of the conversation and accusations this
:10:37. > :10:40.morning about who might be behind that, and at really doesn't look
:10:41. > :10:44.very good for Theresa May. But actually it is all about how she
:10:45. > :10:49.looks - how she looks tired and not really having authority. And anyone
:10:50. > :10:53.of us who have been watching the negotiations could have told you
:10:54. > :10:59.that. To be missing from this leak is really any substance. There's not
:11:00. > :11:02.much in it that we did not know, although it does not look good for
:11:03. > :11:06.the Prime Minister. And this follows another dinner conversation between
:11:07. > :11:13.the two same people, also leaked, to the same newspaper in fact, Henry
:11:14. > :11:17.Mance, so what do we make of this, because of course it is John Torode
:11:18. > :11:21.Juncker's man who is being blamed? Yeah, he has denied that on Twitter,
:11:22. > :11:25.which is quite unusual for one of the most important men in Brussels.
:11:26. > :11:31.The tone of the leak is completely different. John Torode Juncker is
:11:32. > :11:35.not being accused of saying that Theresa May is in a different galaxy
:11:36. > :11:43.this time, but I think it does raise a question of trust. It had been
:11:44. > :11:48.said that they would not have the trust to come to a trading deal, and
:11:49. > :11:51.equally I think the British side can say, if we're going to have dinner
:11:52. > :11:57.and details are going to appear in German newspaper,, that undermines
:11:58. > :12:00.our trust. But there is something about politicians complaining about
:12:01. > :12:03.leaks because we know that it is a normal fact of life on this side of
:12:04. > :12:07.the channel and on that side. But what about all of the advice that
:12:08. > :12:12.the Prime Minister is getting? She's being pushed and pulled on all.
:12:13. > :12:17.Sides and we've just heard the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson,
:12:18. > :12:21.saying, come on, we have got to get on with it? In some of the stuff
:12:22. > :12:23.which came out of the council, particularly last week, it seemed
:12:24. > :12:30.that the prime and Mr was pushing this idea of her domestic relations
:12:31. > :12:33.at. Home we have seen Cabinet splits over Brexit, that's not new, but for
:12:34. > :12:37.the Prime Minister to go to Brussels and to use that as part of her
:12:38. > :12:41.bargaining narrative, to be saying, you might not like what we are
:12:42. > :12:44.asking you to do, but imagine if it was somebody else... There's been
:12:45. > :12:49.lots of conversations in the press about how Boris Johnson really is
:12:50. > :12:53.figuring in all of this, and that might be something Theresa May was
:12:54. > :12:57.playing. Up there was a question about how Theresa May was saying, I
:12:58. > :13:01.have got people on my back on all sides, and you're going to have to
:13:02. > :13:05.help me sell this to my citizens and you're going to have to sell it to
:13:06. > :13:11.yours. There is still deadlocked on the amount of money the UK will have
:13:12. > :13:13.to pay back to the EU, and that's something which hasn't changed,
:13:14. > :13:20.despite all of these reports and all of the looking cosy on. Camera but I
:13:21. > :13:23.think she trying to shift the tone to say, you've got problems, I've
:13:24. > :13:27.got problems at, but it could be far worse. Although there were various
:13:28. > :13:30.commentators saying that whatever is going on in Britain really is not
:13:31. > :13:35.their issue unless of course it is the case that the implication is
:13:36. > :13:41.that they might get something worse than Theresa May. So, flowing from
:13:42. > :13:49.that, business is putting pressure on Theresa May - tell us about the
:13:50. > :13:52.letter? The CBI letter this morning, so, this is not something new, we've
:13:53. > :13:55.seen business is urging the Prime Minister to give them clarity,
:13:56. > :13:58.because businesses have to plan ahead and they don't want to get
:13:59. > :14:01.into a situation where they are planning for one agreement on Brexit
:14:02. > :14:08.and then another comes along and they're not prepared for it.
:14:09. > :14:12.Businesses fear a no deal Brexit. I think the discussion is interesting
:14:13. > :14:15.because it is not something we were really talking about seriously even
:14:16. > :14:21.a month ago, and now it is on everybody's lips. The Labour Party
:14:22. > :14:25.are also saying that this is no deal conversation helps them because the
:14:26. > :14:28.moderate Tories are also frightened of it, a bit like business groups,
:14:29. > :14:32.and really don't want to see it happen. So we are seeing no deal
:14:33. > :14:37.being mobilised by different people more and more. That's what this
:14:38. > :14:41.letter is saying - tell us what's going to happen, give us some
:14:42. > :14:44.clarity so that we can make sure that all of our bases remain in the
:14:45. > :14:55.UK. What impact do you think the letter will have?
:14:56. > :15:01.They feel they are very close to getting over the line. They are
:15:02. > :15:04.nudging the British government towards the position where they have
:15:05. > :15:09.at least a couple of years of breathing space. Henry and Kate,
:15:10. > :15:17.thank you. Let's pick up on that letter from the business lobby
:15:18. > :15:22.groups. With me is the co-chair of the group Leave Means Leave. They
:15:23. > :15:26.are pretty big organisations, the CBI, the British Chambers of
:15:27. > :15:30.Commerce, the Institute of directors, the engineering employers
:15:31. > :15:35.Federation. If they say that their members are reviewing investment
:15:36. > :15:38.plans, should we listen to them? We're delighted these organisations
:15:39. > :15:43.have come round to our way of thinking. We've been saying that the
:15:44. > :15:47.government either need to agree a transition deal or give the clarity
:15:48. > :15:53.and say, we cannot reach a deal so we are moving to a different type of
:15:54. > :15:57.deal, which is WTO. We came up with the expression that no deal is
:15:58. > :16:02.better than a bad deal. The reality is the WTO is a different type of
:16:03. > :16:09.deal. It is how most nations operate. What these groups are
:16:10. > :16:18.saying is we only want change once, but we need that clarity. Sword you
:16:19. > :16:23.would support these organisations in their call for a status quo
:16:24. > :16:26.transition deal. We stay in the transition market -- the single
:16:27. > :16:31.market. The government put that forward. The key difference, during
:16:32. > :16:36.that period we need the flexibility, bearing in mind we are paying, to be
:16:37. > :16:43.able to sign and implement trade deals because that is a key benefit.
:16:44. > :16:50.If that is not part of that transition deal, would you support
:16:51. > :16:57.it? That is where we would differ. Let's be clear, Leave Means Leave
:16:58. > :17:02.would support these businesses in extending the status quo. As long as
:17:03. > :17:07.we have stability and it is fixed for two years. We worry that they
:17:08. > :17:11.want to remain there, we cannot get the benefits. Is that what you think
:17:12. > :17:18.these groups really want? We're pretty confident that is what they
:17:19. > :17:23.want. They represent the vested interests, the big multinationals
:17:24. > :17:31.who voted for remain. It suits them. It is protectionist. Do their views
:17:32. > :17:37.not count? Everybody's views count. You seem to be saying that they want
:17:38. > :17:42.to thwart Brexit and so they should be ignored. Ultimately it is the
:17:43. > :17:47.people's thought that counts. Witnesses do not have a vote. But
:17:48. > :17:53.they do have an influence in policy-making and thinking. It is
:17:54. > :18:01.right to only have one change. What is wrong is to ignore the will of
:18:02. > :18:09.the people and disguise this. Do you see that as the tactic? That this is
:18:10. > :18:17.a disguise to remain forever in the single market? I would not say that.
:18:18. > :18:23.People are getting fed up of the negativity coming out of the
:18:24. > :18:29.European Union. We need to get on with this. This was a democratic
:18:30. > :18:35.result, a vote to leave the European Union. The people are the boss. We
:18:36. > :18:39.need to deliver that. I can see what people are trying to do. People are
:18:40. > :18:46.getting pretty fed up and we need to get on with where we are going. How
:18:47. > :18:52.much longer should Theresa May pursue the negotiations to get a
:18:53. > :18:54.trade deal? They've been given a task and we need to fall in behind
:18:55. > :19:01.them so they can get the best possible deal. That is not how
:19:02. > :19:06.negotiations work. The British people voted for this and they will
:19:07. > :19:13.be seen off. When should David Davis walk away from these negotiations?
:19:14. > :19:19.To allow proper preparations for the alternative plan, our view is
:19:20. > :19:25.Christmas. Different deal. The mischief makers are saying it means
:19:26. > :19:34.you crash out. You don't. You go for another type of deal. So you would
:19:35. > :19:42.like him to walk away if there's not been any progress. Do you agree that
:19:43. > :19:48.there is not a cliff edge? We've made it clear, even the Home
:19:49. > :19:53.Secretary said, it is unthinkable to think about no deal. We need to
:19:54. > :19:57.listen to businesses. It is great that they've come out and written to
:19:58. > :20:03.the government and I don't agree that they want a permanent Brexit.
:20:04. > :20:06.We need to give them an opportunity to address concerns about access to
:20:07. > :20:13.the single market and listen to them. Members of the cabinet like
:20:14. > :20:18.the Home Secretary have said it is unthinkable to walk away without a
:20:19. > :20:21.deal. Why was she wrong? She's really saying there is a strong
:20:22. > :20:28.preference but if you cannot reach that agreement you've got to prepare
:20:29. > :20:31.for the alternative. The worst thing in the world is that we let this
:20:32. > :20:36.drag on and we get trapped into a really bad deal because we are
:20:37. > :20:43.desperate, because we haven't done the preparation. We end up being
:20:44. > :20:50.trapped in a really bad deal. Do you back Labour's proposal to block no
:20:51. > :20:56.deal? Absolutely. Whatever deal has got to be good for the economy and
:20:57. > :21:00.for consumer rights, with the bill we are supposed to be discussing at
:21:01. > :21:04.this week but it has been delayed. Phase one of the negotiations have
:21:05. > :21:12.been put back to December. We need to be clear it is not about time, it
:21:13. > :21:17.is about the detail. Do you think a transition deal is vital? If you're
:21:18. > :21:20.not prepared to walk away from negotiations you will be completely
:21:21. > :21:26.sealed off and we've got to abide by that. People saw the vision of what
:21:27. > :21:32.Brexit is and we've got to deliver it. If you say we will take whatever
:21:33. > :21:38.you give us it will not work out. I think we need to get on with
:21:39. > :21:48.delivering it. Would you like to see a transition deal in place? Whatever
:21:49. > :21:55.works for anyone around the table. What people are asking for is to get
:21:56. > :22:00.on and do it. If we need to then fine. Let's have a clear direction
:22:01. > :22:05.of travel and let's get there. One of the things that makes deliver
:22:06. > :22:10.that deal is the UK Government saying that there is more money that
:22:11. > :22:13.can be put onto the table to guarantee that. If that makes it
:22:14. > :22:22.happen would you support the government doing that? This is the
:22:23. > :22:25.fundamental challenge we are facing and we need to get on and deliver it
:22:26. > :22:32.because people expect it to be done. In recent years, hundreds of Britons
:22:33. > :22:34.have travelled to fight for so-called Islamic State
:22:35. > :22:36.in Syria and Iraq. While some have returned to the UK,
:22:37. > :22:39.the head of MI5 confirmed earlier this month that many had
:22:40. > :22:42.been killed, and yesterday, one In recent years, hundreds of Britons
:22:43. > :22:53.have travelled to fight for so-called Islamic State
:22:54. > :22:55.in Syria and Iraq. While some have returned to the UK,
:22:56. > :22:58.the head of MI5 confirmed earlier this month that many had
:22:59. > :23:00.been killed, and yesterday, one government minister fuelled
:23:01. > :23:03.the debate about how to deal with UK foreign fighters, saying that
:23:04. > :23:05.converts to so-called Islamic State believed in an "extremely hateful
:23:06. > :23:07.doctrine" and should Yesterday, International Development
:23:08. > :23:10.Minister Rory Stewart told the BBC's Pienaar's Politics that "the only
:23:11. > :23:13.way of dealing with them will be, to have travelled to Iraq and Syria
:23:14. > :23:20.to fight for IS, of which almost As prime minister, David Cameron
:23:21. > :23:25.authorised drone strikes against Britons who fought
:23:26. > :23:34.for IS in Syria. Earlier this month, the head of MI5,
:23:35. > :23:37.Andrew Parker, confirmed that around 130 of those fighters
:23:38. > :23:38.had been killed. Amongst them is British
:23:39. > :23:40.IS recruiter Sally-Anne Jones, known as the White Widow,
:23:41. > :23:43.who is reported to have been killed Following her death,
:23:44. > :23:47.Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said British IS fighters in Syria
:23:48. > :23:49.and Iraq had made themselves who could end up on "the wrong end
:23:50. > :23:54.of an RAF or USAF missile". But the independent reviewer
:23:55. > :23:58.of terrorism legislation, Max Hill QC, argued that Britons
:23:59. > :24:01.who join IS through "naivety" should be spared prosecution
:24:02. > :24:03.if they return home, and instead be supported
:24:04. > :24:05.to reintegrate into society. Joining me now is Rafaello
:24:06. > :24:07.Pantucci, a counter-terrorism expert from the Royal United
:24:08. > :24:23.Services Institute. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Rory
:24:24. > :24:27.Stewart, the minister we were talking about, has backed off a
:24:28. > :24:35.little bit from the comments he made yesterday. Did he overstepped the
:24:36. > :24:40.mark or was he for a single government thinks but cannot say? I
:24:41. > :24:44.think he's expressing a view which is the easiest solution for these
:24:45. > :24:52.individuals. If you look at individuals who have gone to fight
:24:53. > :24:55.alongside so-called Islamic State, you are looking at individuals
:24:56. > :24:59.participating in an organisation that has repeatedly stated that it
:25:00. > :25:05.wants to launch attacks in the West. With these individuals, when they
:25:06. > :25:11.come home, there is not necessarily a case that can be made against
:25:12. > :25:14.them. These people come back and it is not like the information around
:25:15. > :25:19.them comes from secret of sources. People should be prosecuted when
:25:20. > :25:23.they come back. If that case cannot be built then security services have
:25:24. > :25:28.got to do a very difficult job of monitoring someone for a very long
:25:29. > :25:33.period of time. In many ways he is stating the easiest solution. We
:25:34. > :25:37.need to remember that this should not be the prescriptive approach.
:25:38. > :25:40.We've got to bear in mind that with these individuals they are
:25:41. > :25:47.individual cases they've got to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
:25:48. > :25:53.Do you expect to see an upsurge in targeted killings? We've seen the
:25:54. > :26:02.administration in the United States has stepped up targeted strikes.
:26:03. > :26:07.We've seen the UK has openly started to say it has been targeting
:26:08. > :26:12.individuals. We can see that the trend has been in that direction
:26:13. > :26:17.already. It is not a particularly novel statement. Now that we're
:26:18. > :26:20.seeing so-called Islamic State shrinking back, the number of
:26:21. > :26:26.fighters are dwindling and the question is, what ends up happening
:26:27. > :26:31.with these individuals? Andrew Parker says 130 UK nationals have
:26:32. > :26:36.been killed whilst fighting for Islamic State. How significant is
:26:37. > :26:43.that number? The official number that is coded as around 850. You're
:26:44. > :26:51.talking about six or seven of that number confirmed dead. It's possible
:26:52. > :26:55.that number is higher. I think you're looking at a fairly
:26:56. > :26:59.substantial number. What we don't know is exactly what these people
:27:00. > :27:04.are doing next. It is unclear about what is going on in the battlefield.
:27:05. > :27:15.People picked up by the Kurdish forces, these people are sitting in
:27:16. > :27:20.jails. What will happen to them? Are they requesting advice? How are they
:27:21. > :27:24.being tracked within the system? Not everyone who went out there went to
:27:25. > :27:34.fight alongside Islamic State. A lot of individuals went out to fight
:27:35. > :27:38.against the Al-Qaeda group. The issue is that we don't have a grip
:27:39. > :27:41.on exactly what has happened to these individuals, how many of them
:27:42. > :27:48.are out there, and what they are doing next. Thank you for joining us
:27:49. > :27:53.today. Johnny Mercer, what was wrong with what Rory Stewart said
:27:54. > :28:00.yesterday when he said the only way of dealing with them will be to kill
:28:01. > :28:06.them? Absolutely nothing at all. Why did he have two clarify his
:28:07. > :28:12.statement? Some aspects of the media will say that he is advocating
:28:13. > :28:16.breaking the law. There is a clear case. Some will be reconciled. But I
:28:17. > :28:22.don't buy this about naivete. These people want to die and they have
:28:23. > :28:25.actively gone against our country, and ultimately I'm a patriot. These
:28:26. > :28:32.people expect us to deal with them. For some of them, the only outcome
:28:33. > :28:37.is to target them whilst they are away from the UK so that we can keep
:28:38. > :28:43.people safe. That the first duty of government and I support that 100%.
:28:44. > :28:50.You stand by the comments your colleague made and that is the
:28:51. > :28:53.government line. That is not something I can comment on. I can
:28:54. > :28:56.comment on the right thing to do and that is to keep people safe at home
:28:57. > :29:01.and those with a dedicated ambition to bring down this country have
:29:02. > :29:05.given up their right to freedom is that we enjoy in this country and
:29:06. > :29:11.should be targeted. If you go and fight for a foreign power and are
:29:12. > :29:15.committed to killing British troops then you lose any rights at all and
:29:16. > :29:22.you should expect to be targeted. I don't agree. The 350 that returned
:29:23. > :29:26.back into the country, only 101 of them have been convicted of any
:29:27. > :29:30.criminal activity. We know lots of people at risk of radicalisation, of
:29:31. > :29:44.grooming. The government agenda has not worked. It does not empower
:29:45. > :29:55.communities to address the issues. I'd like to know what has happened
:29:56. > :29:59.with the 200 plus people who were not convicted, what work has been
:30:00. > :30:06.done, how do we know what has been done so we can prevent it from
:30:07. > :30:10.happening again? All these efforts to counteract people, you've got to
:30:11. > :30:12.have a hardline we are individuals who actively try and endanger
:30:13. > :30:20.citizens of this country are prosecuted. Where that is a targeted
:30:21. > :30:22.strike, anything we can do, we have to do that. We cannot become this
:30:23. > :30:44.soft nation. Ultimately this death cult, it's
:30:45. > :30:48.totally wrong. And that is what Rory Stewart has been saying. But how do
:30:49. > :30:54.we know they have committed a crime bottle for example? Nobody gets
:30:55. > :30:57.targeted simply because they go to Syria, they get targeted because
:30:58. > :31:02.they build up an intelligence profile which is very clear. Some of
:31:03. > :31:06.these go up to the Secretary of State. The idea that somebody could
:31:07. > :31:12.have just gallivant it off to Syria and get drowned is just completely
:31:13. > :31:17.wrong! You have to have built up a significant profile to get targeted.
:31:18. > :31:21.Isn't that what Rory is saying, but if you have gone out of there, than
:31:22. > :31:25.you can expect to be killed? Because the vast majority would have gone
:31:26. > :31:28.there with the explicit intention of joining Isis and targeting the
:31:29. > :31:31.United Kingdom and of all the rest of it. That's what has to be
:31:32. > :31:36.defended. That's what Rory is talking about. 250 who have not been
:31:37. > :31:41.convicted, who have come back, we need to understand what's been
:31:42. > :31:44.happening. I understand there is a counter-terrorism strategy but some
:31:45. > :31:48.of this is about preventing people going out and understanding what it
:31:49. > :31:52.is. And the Home Office is working really hard on that, you look at
:31:53. > :31:56.what they. Do around Prevent but what I'm saying is these individuals
:31:57. > :32:02.take up arms against this country and yes, we go out and kill them.
:32:03. > :32:05.Let's talk about Max Hill QC, because he says that the authorities
:32:06. > :32:09.have looked at a number of people who have come back from Syria and
:32:10. > :32:13.decided that they do not justify prosecution and really we should be
:32:14. > :32:15.looking at reintegration and moving away from any notion that we're
:32:16. > :32:23.going to lose a generation from this travel. Is he right? In individual
:32:24. > :32:25.cases, clearly he is right. I wrote a paper about reconciliation and
:32:26. > :32:30.whether or not we can reconcile these people. In the tier one
:32:31. > :32:35.targets I'm afraid you cannot reconcile them and Rory is right,
:32:36. > :32:40.they want to die and we should do that. Is he being soft? There is not
:32:41. > :32:47.a soft or bad element about this - we need to do the right thing for
:32:48. > :32:50.people. Vulnerable people who have been turned into jihadists and so
:32:51. > :32:56.on, I don't buy the premise that people wander out there and do not
:32:57. > :33:00.know what they're doing, everybody knows what Isis is about and I'm
:33:01. > :33:04.afraid people who make that serious decision, they have got to take
:33:05. > :33:08.responsible achieve for it. Why should the British governance spend
:33:09. > :33:12.time and resources trying to sift through varying degrees of
:33:13. > :33:16.commitment to Islamic State via it is based on being young and naive or
:33:17. > :33:20.whether you're fully signed up to the project, when they are
:33:21. > :33:26.concentrating on security here? What Max Hill QC is talking about is,
:33:27. > :33:30.we've got to apply the UK law in terms of what it actually says, if
:33:31. > :33:34.somebody has committed a criminal acts then they must be. Prosecuted
:33:35. > :33:39.but is this actually going to address the longer term strategy
:33:40. > :33:43.about radicalisation? No, it's not. That's why we've got to do a lot
:33:44. > :33:46.more in terms of understanding why people feel the need to go out and
:33:47. > :33:53.what are the mechanisms - social media platforms, computer games...?
:33:54. > :33:57.But you said there was a significant number of people doing out there who
:33:58. > :34:01.were naive teenagers who did not know what they were going out to do?
:34:02. > :34:07.I think people are radicalised from different reasons, and the fact that
:34:08. > :34:12.these people who came back, which Max is talking about, we have to
:34:13. > :34:15.understand what their family were thinking, how they feel about it,
:34:16. > :34:20.what information they are able to give us, we've got to work with.
:34:21. > :34:25.Them just to say they should lose their citizenship is not right.
:34:26. > :34:28.Young girls who went out to become jihadi brides, should they be
:34:29. > :34:33.treated differently, should they be targeted as well? Each one is a
:34:34. > :34:37.different case. This is not a mass exercise of killing everyone who
:34:38. > :34:43.went to. Syria it is all done strictly according to the law. To
:34:44. > :34:46.conduct these strikes is really, really difficult, to get all of the
:34:47. > :34:52.intelligence lined up, to get it authorised. Those who break the law,
:34:53. > :34:56.yes, they must be prosecuted. We talk about it in Westminster all the
:34:57. > :35:00.time - these freedoms are hard-fought and this is part of it.
:35:01. > :35:04.Should we be withdrawing citizenship from people who fight for Isis,
:35:05. > :35:08.whatever the motivation? Well, I think we need to look at the
:35:09. > :35:12.evidence, and that is the crux. Have we got the evidence to say that
:35:13. > :35:16.actually they did directly go to fight? What else would they be doing
:35:17. > :35:21.out there? There are lots of people who did not really know the extent
:35:22. > :35:24.of the issues. They need a lot more support, their families may not be
:35:25. > :35:28.happy with what's happened. They might change their mind once they
:35:29. > :35:31.are out there and realise, this is not what I signed up for. They
:35:32. > :35:33.should be given a second chance? They should be given the
:35:34. > :35:37.opportunity, yes. At her conference speech last month,
:35:38. > :35:39.Theresa May said that solving the housing crisis
:35:40. > :35:41.was going to be her Well, the Daily Mail
:35:42. > :35:44.columnist Stephen Glover thinks the prime minister should put
:35:45. > :35:47.new taxes on the many empty homes that are owned
:35:48. > :35:49.by super-rich investors. This building here was
:35:50. > :36:10.a working Tube station once. It was also a war command centre
:36:11. > :36:14.under Winston Churchill. The Ministry of Defence sold it
:36:15. > :36:19.in 2014 for ?53 million. It's hardly surprising in this part
:36:20. > :36:23.of London, you may say. But what's really shocking
:36:24. > :36:27.is that it has been It's a similar story in many
:36:28. > :36:38.parts of central London. Earlier this year, in the wake
:36:39. > :36:42.of the horror of Grenfell Tower, figures from Kensington and Chelsea
:36:43. > :36:47.council showed that 1,652 properties in just that one very wealthy
:36:48. > :36:53.borough were listed as unoccupied. Of these, 603 were recorded
:36:54. > :36:59.as having been empty And unlike Jeremy Corbyn,
:37:00. > :37:10.I certainly don't believe that empty But let's tax the empty
:37:11. > :37:17.houses of the super-rich. The local authorities in England
:37:18. > :37:21.are already allowed to charge a premium of up to 50% on council
:37:22. > :37:24.tax if properties have been empty and unfurnished
:37:25. > :37:28.for more than two years. But in Kensington and Chelsea,
:37:29. > :37:31.the maximum extra charge would amount to around
:37:32. > :37:34.?1,000 a year. For a billionaire,
:37:35. > :37:37.that's chump change. Instead, the Government should
:37:38. > :37:40.encourage councils to slap on a much It should also review stamp duty
:37:41. > :37:47.and council tax bands. It can't be right that
:37:48. > :37:51.in Kensington and Chelsea, the owner of a property worth
:37:52. > :37:55.?325,000 pays the same top rate of council tax as a billionaire
:37:56. > :38:02.in a house worth ?50 million. These changes might not bring
:38:03. > :38:06.in a great deal more revenue, or stop the super-rich from buying
:38:07. > :38:12.up much-needed housing stock. But they would signal that
:38:13. > :38:17.Theresa May's Tory government has the right moral priorities
:38:18. > :38:33.and that its heart And Stephen Glover joins us here in
:38:34. > :38:36.the. Studio you said that councils in England already have powers to
:38:37. > :38:39.increase council tax on empty properties, so what are the new
:38:40. > :38:46.taxes that you are calling for? In the first place, in the case of
:38:47. > :38:54.Kensington and Chelsea, if property is vacant for more than two years
:38:55. > :39:01.they can slap on an extra council tax but ?1000 a year is so
:39:02. > :39:05.negligible for a billionaire. I cannot give you an exact figure but
:39:06. > :39:08.I want a tax which is much more swingeing and makes a very rich
:39:09. > :39:15.people think twice. So you would like to see amounts of money raised
:39:16. > :39:18.in order to add as a deterrent to people being able to buy those
:39:19. > :39:22.properties and leave them empty, but you admit that at the moment any new
:39:23. > :39:27.taxes probably won't raise large amount of money or solve the housing
:39:28. > :39:30.crisis but it could look as if the government had its heart in the
:39:31. > :39:39.right place, is this more about that? Is not just about that. Any
:39:40. > :39:43.more money the government can get without punishing ordinary people,
:39:44. > :39:46.ordinary voters, is a good thing, but but it is also to show that the
:39:47. > :39:52.government has its sense of moral priorities. Theresa May has been
:39:53. > :39:55.going on about it again and again, reaching out to third just about
:39:56. > :40:01.managing. These people are amazed that somebody can have a house like
:40:02. > :40:06.that in London and leave it empty for years and pay a few thousand
:40:07. > :40:09.pounds in council tax. Would you support new, much higher, taxes on
:40:10. > :40:15.these MC properties bought by investors that only the thing is
:40:16. > :40:19.with tax, is, getting the most amount of money you possibly can
:40:20. > :40:22.into the. Exchequer if that is going to contribute and not keep people
:40:23. > :40:27.out of the country... Are you worried that it would? There is
:40:28. > :40:31.always an element that if you increase taxes on higher earners,
:40:32. > :40:33.they will go elsewhere if it ultimately the NHS and the public
:40:34. > :40:38.services will suffer, so I don't think it is quite as simple as that.
:40:39. > :40:42.But if this would improve the housing market then I would support
:40:43. > :40:50.it. This is targeted at people with empty houses, it's not... It's about
:40:51. > :40:58.people who are not occupying them. As I say, I don't think they're all
:40:59. > :41:02.going to disappear from the country. If they don't even live here and
:41:03. > :41:04.they don't contribute to the country, then absolutely. You would
:41:05. > :41:09.be in favour of that. On those conditions. What about allowing
:41:10. > :41:13.councils to be able to borrow substantial amounts to build homes?
:41:14. > :41:20.This is Sajid Javid's comments yesterday. I think we have got to do
:41:21. > :41:23.more on housing. I'm really pleased Theresa May has taken this up, but
:41:24. > :41:27.we haven't done anything about it for a long. Time for my generation
:41:28. > :41:31.to get on the housing ladder now is extremely tough, and we have to do
:41:32. > :41:36.better. So would you like councils to have the ability to borrow to
:41:37. > :41:40.build homes? Yes, people want to own their own homes but a lot of people
:41:41. > :41:45.want good quality social rented accommodation, and politicians it is
:41:46. > :41:49.our job to provide what people need. I understand about owning your own
:41:50. > :41:52.house, absolutely, and that is a great thing, but in the meantime if
:41:53. > :41:56.we can't we have to do better on social housing and I would support
:41:57. > :42:01.that. So, 5000 council homes a year, announced by Theresa May? There's a
:42:02. > :42:08.lot of detail to be gone into on that. There is a review on housing
:42:09. > :42:12.being done at the moment. Is this important politically, are you
:42:13. > :42:16.trying to head off Jeremy Corbyn and Labour making further inroads on
:42:17. > :42:23.issues like housing? Yes, it is partly that. Housing is at toxic
:42:24. > :42:29.issue and many people feel very aggrieved, because housing is so
:42:30. > :42:32.expensive. And this one measure which isn't talking about is not
:42:33. > :42:37.going to solve everything, there are other measures which will do that,
:42:38. > :42:42.but it will show that government knows that people rightly feel
:42:43. > :42:49.outraged that a house can lie empty for two years, which is worth ?30
:42:50. > :42:53.million and the person who owns that house is not there. Would you
:42:54. > :42:58.support higher taxes on into properties? Absolutely. We've got a
:42:59. > :43:02.housing crisis and we've got to make sure that developers are not just
:43:03. > :43:04.seeking international investment, especially in London, because lots
:43:05. > :43:08.of people just cannot get into the housing market at. All I think we
:43:09. > :43:14.need to look at the longer term strategy. Building 5000 homes a year
:43:15. > :43:17.is just not good enough. Labour councils are building thousands of
:43:18. > :43:20.homes a year already and we need to be clear about the shortage in the
:43:21. > :43:24.housing market. Taxing these properties is one way of doing it,
:43:25. > :43:27.and other would be to requisition the empty properties - do you
:43:28. > :43:31.support that? What happened with Grenfell Tower, what a Jeremy Corbyn
:43:32. > :43:35.said was absolutely right in terms of an immediate position. In the
:43:36. > :43:40.longer term what do we do, that's more. Complex but I do believe there
:43:41. > :43:46.are too many empty homes in London, and we need to maybe look at what we
:43:47. > :43:50.do around those and how we tax them. But should empty properties going
:43:51. > :43:57.forward be requisitioned to help with the housing crisis? Why not? It
:43:58. > :44:01.could be a short-term thing. I think there is an opportunity to look at
:44:02. > :44:04.it, we shouldn't just ignore it, because the government is not giving
:44:05. > :44:10.us any other proposals. That would be a radical policy and it would go
:44:11. > :44:16.further than what you're suggesting? Too radical, we must respect
:44:17. > :44:19.property rights. Somebody who owns a house worth ?10 million has the same
:44:20. > :44:25.rights as somebody who owns a house worth half ?1 million, it is a
:44:26. > :44:29.principle of law and you can't go around houses if you feel it. How
:44:30. > :44:34.would you do this legally as a short-term measure? You've got to
:44:35. > :44:39.look at the UK law and what the provisions are. But there are not
:44:40. > :44:45.provisions for it at the moment? In London, for example, why could we
:44:46. > :44:51.not have a lease agreement to acquire some of it and use it for
:44:52. > :44:54.housing? I think we've got to be creative about this. So you would
:44:55. > :44:57.like to look at the legal aspects of taking back properties owned by
:44:58. > :45:14.wealthy investors? Why can't, when we've got a housing
:45:15. > :45:18.crisis, we look at short-term leases so that we can use it as temporary
:45:19. > :45:29.accommodation and bring it up to standard? We need to be really
:45:30. > :45:34.careful, it is the rule of law. I've spoken at a Conservative Association
:45:35. > :45:38.and started talking about housing. I've bought my house now but I
:45:39. > :45:45.didn't before that. People are fed up with being demonised. We have to
:45:46. > :45:51.build more houses if we're going to tackle this. It is not as as
:45:52. > :45:58.requisitioning. We've got to go on a revolutionary house-building drive.
:45:59. > :46:02.From today, drivers using the dirtiest cars will have to pay an
:46:03. > :46:05.extra ?10 a day to enter central London.
:46:06. > :46:08.Most of the cars affected will have been bought before 2006 and will now
:46:09. > :46:11.be subject to a ?21 charge in the city's congestion area.
:46:12. > :46:18.The policy is aimed at reducing the impact of air
:46:19. > :46:20.pollution which a study by the Lancet Commission
:46:21. > :46:22.on Pollution has linked to up to fifty 50,000 premature deaths
:46:23. > :46:28.The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, welcomed the measure as one of ways
:46:29. > :46:39.This is what he had to say this morning.
:46:40. > :46:46.We have a health crisis in London caused by poor quality air. More
:46:47. > :46:54.than 9000 died because of bad quality air. There are children with
:46:55. > :46:58.underdeveloped lungs because of it, there are adults who suffer from a
:46:59. > :47:04.variety of conditions linked to the poor quality air so today's charge
:47:05. > :47:08.is the toughest charge in the world for a very good reason. We need to
:47:09. > :47:23.have the most polluting vehicles off the streets of London. Joining us
:47:24. > :47:34.now... From Brighton, specialist in respiratory medicine. Sadiq Khan
:47:35. > :47:44.talks about a health crisis. Would you agree with him? I do not think
:47:45. > :47:47.there is a health crisis. There is a long-term problem, we know that air
:47:48. > :47:52.pollution is not good for you, it has been difficult to say whether it
:47:53. > :47:57.is all that bad for you. This issue about the number of deaths it
:47:58. > :48:04.causes, it is misrepresented. In what way? The Lancet commission says
:48:05. > :48:10.it is costing 50,000 premature deaths per year. Is that wrong?
:48:11. > :48:16.Completely. Anybody who says that either has not read the paperwork or
:48:17. > :48:22.is misrepresenting this for whatever reason. The issue is, in 2008, the
:48:23. > :48:26.committee worked out there was a certain number of days lost from the
:48:27. > :48:37.population as a result of air pollution. It works out at 20-30
:48:38. > :48:45.days. It is not 40,000 people who die. It is a lot of people who lose
:48:46. > :48:52.a little bit of life. If you top that up, you can say it is
:48:53. > :48:55.equivalent to 40,000 lives. There are no premature deaths you can
:48:56. > :49:01.measure as a result of air pollution. Do you agree those
:49:02. > :49:08.figures are wrong to say that they die as a result? It is definitely
:49:09. > :49:14.prematurely. If you die from a heart condition or a lung condition, our
:49:15. > :49:23.pollution may have had an effect on that. We know what effect it has on
:49:24. > :49:27.children. We work with a range of experts, the Royal College of
:49:28. > :49:35.physicians, paediatrics, British Heart Foundation, they all say it
:49:36. > :49:41.has an impact on your health. Is he right to say there is not a direct
:49:42. > :49:49.causal link, you don't have it put on your death certificate? That if
:49:50. > :49:57.pollution does not directly kill, they have an impact on people
:49:58. > :50:05.suffering. Yes, it is a statistical model in the same way they calculate
:50:06. > :50:12.deaths from smoking. I think we find it better to talk about the impact
:50:13. > :50:15.on your daily life. We've just had a baby, he is four weeks premature and
:50:16. > :50:22.we are going to hospital through one of the most polluted roads in
:50:23. > :50:27.Europe. That is terrifying, as a parent. You can taste, when you
:50:28. > :50:33.stand in Oxford Circus, a level of air pollution. It is not a good
:50:34. > :50:45.thing. Anything that combats that must be advantageous. You would
:50:46. > :50:56.presume. There is clearly a lot less pollution in London compared to the
:50:57. > :51:02.1970s, we have seen a 70% decline, 60% since 2000, and we are on track
:51:03. > :51:05.to meet our self-imposed target. Much of this argument is about
:51:06. > :51:14.certain specific areas in the country. We want to take additional
:51:15. > :51:20.action. We don't know for sure... That would be a good thing. It
:51:21. > :51:25.would, but the question is how much benefit you are going to see from
:51:26. > :51:31.it. If you're talking about this charge, it targets a very small
:51:32. > :51:36.number of vehicles. But actually, the oxide in London, if you look at
:51:37. > :51:41.London roads, 60% comes from traffic, a quarter from diesel cars,
:51:42. > :51:48.a quarter from buses, a quarter from HGVs. Another from elsewhere. You're
:51:49. > :51:51.talking a total of 15%. If you take out the small number of really
:51:52. > :51:58.polluting cars you're still left with a lot that are efficient but
:51:59. > :52:09.produce more nitrogen oxide. You won't see any tangible change. Will
:52:10. > :52:18.you not see any tangible change? Is it going to make a big difference?
:52:19. > :52:31.The charge is an essential step. As a package of measures it is
:52:32. > :52:34.essential. We have those smog is that we could see, if I could just
:52:35. > :52:42.finished my point... We had the clean air act, that cleaned up the
:52:43. > :52:46.air. We have a similar thing today. It is diesel cars causing this
:52:47. > :52:50.pollution. We need the same action again with these vehicles. It is
:52:51. > :52:58.madness we are driving vehicles that harm our health in this day and age.
:52:59. > :53:04.Why are you so reluctant to support measures that, even if they have a
:53:05. > :53:11.small impact, will be a help in combination with other factors
:53:12. > :53:17.brought into play? They could reduce the number of people dying
:53:18. > :53:23.prematurely. It is not nitrogen oxide, it is particles which are
:53:24. > :53:28.killing people. In relation to this, it will probably make a 1%
:53:29. > :53:33.difference to the amount in London. That is the sort of figure. It will
:53:34. > :53:37.target for people who drive older cars, at the moment it is taking the
:53:38. > :53:43.bottom out of the second-hand car market, which means people with a
:53:44. > :53:49.post-2006 diesel car will find it difficult to sell their car and
:53:50. > :53:54.switch across. I think as a policy measure it is misguided. Is it
:53:55. > :54:02.misguided, either better things that could be done? Things that would
:54:03. > :54:08.solve or mitigate it? It is definitely not misguided. We need a
:54:09. > :54:12.range of measures to help people switch to cleaner forms of
:54:13. > :54:16.transport. It is not their fault that they are driving these
:54:17. > :54:20.vehicles. People on low incomes, we should have targeted scrappage
:54:21. > :54:26.scheme. Other countries are doing it. We should be doing it. This is a
:54:27. > :54:33.good first step. Thank you, both of you. If you've been looking at
:54:34. > :54:39.photographs on Instagram you might think that Clapp has a new MP. He
:54:40. > :54:43.appears to be an exemplary public servant doing all the things a good
:54:44. > :54:51.MP should like catching up with his constituents. Talking to local
:54:52. > :54:59.businesses. Campaigning and knocking on doors. He's even been schmoozing
:55:00. > :55:04.the political elite like Ed Miliband. It looks like he's been
:55:05. > :55:11.catching up with the current Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Very
:55:12. > :55:14.impressive. Is everything as it seems? Joining us is Patrick
:55:15. > :55:20.O'Donnell, the self-proclaimed MP for Clapham. What are you doing? It
:55:21. > :55:27.started a few months ago with my friends, we would take photos
:55:28. > :55:36.spontaneously randomly, so they have a political theme and relate to
:55:37. > :55:41.politics and feature me pretending to be an MP with lots of political
:55:42. > :55:49.staged things such as launderettes complaining about the high price of
:55:50. > :55:54.laundry for students. So it's a bit of fun, it's tongue in cheek. Why
:55:55. > :56:00.would you want to pretend to be an MP? There is the fun, silly side,
:56:01. > :56:05.and also what I found when I did these, it is quite a serious issue
:56:06. > :56:13.in terms of the high cost of the laundry. Some important things are
:56:14. > :56:17.raised such as young people being engaged in politics. One thing I
:56:18. > :56:26.focused on was the need for young people to vote. Lets see if you know
:56:27. > :56:34.all the things a good constituent MP should now. Do you know the cost of
:56:35. > :56:42.a pint of milk? About 45p. What is it? About that. Johnny is nodding
:56:43. > :56:47.hopefully. What about state pension, what is the basic state pension?
:56:48. > :56:58.I've no idea but probably not enough. It is about 140. It used to
:56:59. > :57:07.be 125. Definitely agree with that. It is not as high as that, 115. That
:57:08. > :57:18.doubles if you're married. What is your favourite biscuit? Custard
:57:19. > :57:26.creams. Dark chocolate McVities. You've all managed to do that. Do
:57:27. > :57:32.you have a genuine ambition? I definitely want to get involved in
:57:33. > :57:42.politics in some way. I'm only 18 so it is quite early to say. They want
:57:43. > :57:51.to get younger people involved. You're looking at yourself. How did
:57:52. > :58:00.he do? Should get involved straightaway. He's a natural. Thank
:58:01. > :58:08.you very much. There is time to find out the answer to our quiz. What
:58:09. > :58:18.happened next in that meeting. Do you have any idea what happened when
:58:19. > :58:32.Macron was with his ministers? I have seen it. Lets have a look.
:58:33. > :58:53.Well, that is what the dog thought of that meeting. How embarrassing.
:58:54. > :58:56.He has the right idea. That is it for today. Thank you for being our
:58:57. > :59:00.guests of the day. I will be back tomorrow.