23/10/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.

The UK's five biggest business lobby groups call for an urgent Brexit

transition deal that mirrors existing arrangements,

or risk Britain losing jobs and investment.

A government minister says the only way of dealing

with British Islamic State fighters is to kill them

Does this represent a toughening of the Government's line?

The Mayor of London introduces a new charge on the most polluting

cars, and says poor quality air is causing a "health crisis".

And - should we tax rich property owners who keep their houses empty?

One Daily Mail columnist argues it is time for radical action.

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

of the programme today are the Conservative

MP Johnny Mercer and the Labour MP Preet Gill -

First today, is the Government going to reduce the six-week wait

time for universal credit claimants to get their first payment?

Yesterday, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, described

the wait time as "grotesquely ignorant" - but the Government says

the scheme has been working well in pilot areas.

Well, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Debbie Abrahams

was on the Sunday Politics at the weekend.

She was asked why Labour were only calling for a pause

in universal credit, and not planning to

Because we always agreed with the principles around simplifying the

social security system and also ensuring that work pays. However

there are a number of fundamental flaws and on top of that the cuts.

We have also had administrative issues, so we are calling for a

pause. Labour backs the idea of Universal

Credit in principle, there was a Commons vote last week to pause it

and it was won by Labour but that had no binding effect, so what can

Labour do now but are we the fact that we secured a debate and then a

vote in the Commons has been really important. In what way? Because I

think it gave the government the opportunity to listen to real case

studies. It talks about pilots but those with single people, not

families. I raised the concern about my constituent who has a shortfall

in housing benefit, she has had briefly to his telling her that she

has been offered different payments. At least in the legacy benefits,

when one was stopped, you still carried on getting the other

benefit, and in this case you. Don't about half of people on universal

verdict are reliant on advanced payments. I understand that example,

but I ask again how will Labour halt this process? Look, we've had a vote

and I think lots of people felt that the party in power needs to come and

tell the Commons and the House in respect of the democracy that we

have here what it is going to. Do and I think a lot of people on the

other side of the House agree that we need to pause it in order to fix

it. When are you expecting the government to heed your warning to

shorten the waiting time? I'm not asking them to pause and fix, I

don't think that would be the right thing to do. Are you asking them,

though, to shorten the waiting time? There is an element of this which is

out of kilter with the modern caring Conservative Party and that is the

seven-day wait which is built in. And I think we've got to be

realistic. People getting paid in arrears is more like being in work

and a lot of people receiving this benefit will be in work so I agree

with paying it in arrears but there is a seven-day wait which I do not

think is necessary. I think it is too long and I think we should do

something about it. So how long would you like to see it shortened

to? I'm happy for it to be in arrears, like I said, that is the

workplace environment... Should it go from six weeks to one months? I

believe the seven-day wait should go and it should be a four week in

arrears payment like any other job. Have you said that two the Prime

Minister? What I say to the Prime Minister is a private conversation

between me and. Her my view has not changed. Do you think the change

will happen in the next few weeks? I have no idea whether it will change.

I've said the government is listening, and actually the Prime

Minister has said that - the government IS listening, we want to

get this right. Do you think there should be a pause in the roll-out?

No, I. Don't this is one of the best policy fighting tools that we have

two renovate a system which did not work and encouraged people to be in

state welfare and which in areas like mine has had a devastating.

Effect so you're not going to get assistance from the other side of

the House in terms of backing your calls for a pause, so it is

difficult to see how you're going to enact that change the government

persists with going ahead - would you like to see the Universal Credit

increased? Absolutely, at the end of the day, the government heard at the

debate how many errors exist in the current system... In terms of the

payments that are made to people receiving Universal Credit? I think

people should be able to receive them straightaway. I'm talking about

the amount that they receive. Debbie Abrahams talked about increasing the

amount that claimants receive - how much would you like it to be? It has

to be whatever work pays. At the end of the day the government is saying

that people have got savings that they should rely upon and that's why

there is a delayed response. To many people are having to rely on food.

Banks there are lots of areas in terms of how the money is worked out

any that's the problem, that there are far too many areas which have

been raised which the government does need to pause and fix, because

it is their moral duty to do that. What happened next in this meeting

of Emmanuel Macron with some At the end of the show,

Johnny and Preet will give Now, it's another busy

week in Westminster, so let's take a look at what's

in store over the next few days. This afternoon, the Prime

Minister will make a statement to MPs about last week's

European Council meeting. No doubt she will be asked

about leaks in the German press that she appeared "tormented"

and "despondent" at a supposedly private dinner with

Jean-Claude Juncker. And this afternoon,

the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU,

David Davis, will make a dash for Paris to meet

the new French foreign secretary On Wednesday, David Davis,

ever a busy man, will be back in Westminster to give

evidence to the Commons select committee on progress

in the negotiations. And of course, you can

watching the weekly session of Prime Ministers' Questions right

here on the Daily Politics with coverage from

11.30 on Wednesday. Finally, on Thursday,

it's the Daily Politics' highlight of the political calendar,

the Westminster Dog Well, the Foreign Secretary has been

making a speech on global Unsurprisingly, he was asked

about the progress of Brexit talks. The reality is that we think, I

certainly think that the Prime Minister in her Florence speech gave

a fair account of how we want to proceed on citizenship, on finances,

on rights and privileges, the UK has made what we think is a pretty good

offer. I'm lad that at the council in Brussels, they seem more positive

frankly than I thought they were going to be to judge by some of the

anticipatory drum roll of that council. They have given a fair wind

to the idea of themselves now discussing the new trade deal,

however they want to proceed. I suggest humbly to our friends and

partners in Brussels that now is the time to get on with it!

To discuss that and more, I'm joined now from College Green by

Kate McCann of the Daily Telegraph and Henry Mance of

Kate McCann first of all, there's a lot to pick up from the last few

days on Brexit, but what is the fallout do you think from the leaked

dinner conversation between Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker, where

he is reported to have described Theresa May as begging for help?

Well, I think at the back end of last week it looked like Theresa May

had won the council so we came away from that conversation, which Boris

Johnson said this morning the government was expecting to go quite

badly thinking that actually some progress had been made. Angela

Merkel was willing to walk and talk with Theresa May, but of course last

night we have seen there of the conversation and accusations this

morning about who might be behind that, and at really doesn't look

very good for Theresa May. But actually it is all about how she

looks - how she looks tired and not really having authority. And anyone

of us who have been watching the negotiations could have told you

that. To be missing from this leak is really any substance. There's not

much in it that we did not know, although it does not look good for

the Prime Minister. And this follows another dinner conversation between

the two same people, also leaked, to the same newspaper in fact, Henry

Mance, so what do we make of this, because of course it is John Torode

Juncker's man who is being blamed? Yeah, he has denied that on Twitter,

which is quite unusual for one of the most important men in Brussels.

The tone of the leak is completely different. John Torode Juncker is

not being accused of saying that Theresa May is in a different galaxy

this time, but I think it does raise a question of trust. It had been

said that they would not have the trust to come to a trading deal, and

equally I think the British side can say, if we're going to have dinner

and details are going to appear in German newspaper,, that undermines

our trust. But there is something about politicians complaining about

leaks because we know that it is a normal fact of life on this side of

the channel and on that side. But what about all of the advice that

the Prime Minister is getting? She's being pushed and pulled on all.

Sides and we've just heard the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson,

saying, come on, we have got to get on with it? In some of the stuff

which came out of the council, particularly last week, it seemed

that the prime and Mr was pushing this idea of her domestic relations

at. Home we have seen Cabinet splits over Brexit, that's not new, but for

the Prime Minister to go to Brussels and to use that as part of her

bargaining narrative, to be saying, you might not like what we are

asking you to do, but imagine if it was somebody else... There's been

lots of conversations in the press about how Boris Johnson really is

figuring in all of this, and that might be something Theresa May was

playing. Up there was a question about how Theresa May was saying, I

have got people on my back on all sides, and you're going to have to

help me sell this to my citizens and you're going to have to sell it to

yours. There is still deadlocked on the amount of money the UK will have

to pay back to the EU, and that's something which hasn't changed,

despite all of these reports and all of the looking cosy on. Camera but I

think she trying to shift the tone to say, you've got problems, I've

got problems at, but it could be far worse. Although there were various

commentators saying that whatever is going on in Britain really is not

their issue unless of course it is the case that the implication is

that they might get something worse than Theresa May. So, flowing from

that, business is putting pressure on Theresa May - tell us about the

letter? The CBI letter this morning, so, this is not something new, we've

seen business is urging the Prime Minister to give them clarity,

because businesses have to plan ahead and they don't want to get

into a situation where they are planning for one agreement on Brexit

and then another comes along and they're not prepared for it.

Businesses fear a no deal Brexit. I think the discussion is interesting

because it is not something we were really talking about seriously even

a month ago, and now it is on everybody's lips. The Labour Party

are also saying that this is no deal conversation helps them because the

moderate Tories are also frightened of it, a bit like business groups,

and really don't want to see it happen. So we are seeing no deal

being mobilised by different people more and more. That's what this

letter is saying - tell us what's going to happen, give us some

clarity so that we can make sure that all of our bases remain in the

UK. What impact do you think the letter will have?

They feel they are very close to getting over the line. They are

nudging the British government towards the position where they have

at least a couple of years of breathing space. Henry and Kate,

thank you. Let's pick up on that letter from the business lobby

groups. With me is the co-chair of the group Leave Means Leave. They

are pretty big organisations, the CBI, the British Chambers of

Commerce, the Institute of directors, the engineering employers

Federation. If they say that their members are reviewing investment

plans, should we listen to them? We're delighted these organisations

have come round to our way of thinking. We've been saying that the

government either need to agree a transition deal or give the clarity

and say, we cannot reach a deal so we are moving to a different type of

deal, which is WTO. We came up with the expression that no deal is

better than a bad deal. The reality is the WTO is a different type of

deal. It is how most nations operate. What these groups are

saying is we only want change once, but we need that clarity. Sword you

would support these organisations in their call for a status quo

transition deal. We stay in the transition market -- the single

market. The government put that forward. The key difference, during

that period we need the flexibility, bearing in mind we are paying, to be

able to sign and implement trade deals because that is a key benefit.

If that is not part of that transition deal, would you support

it? That is where we would differ. Let's be clear, Leave Means Leave

would support these businesses in extending the status quo. As long as

we have stability and it is fixed for two years. We worry that they

want to remain there, we cannot get the benefits. Is that what you think

these groups really want? We're pretty confident that is what they

want. They represent the vested interests, the big multinationals

who voted for remain. It suits them. It is protectionist. Do their views

not count? Everybody's views count. You seem to be saying that they want

to thwart Brexit and so they should be ignored. Ultimately it is the

people's thought that counts. Witnesses do not have a vote. But

they do have an influence in policy-making and thinking. It is

right to only have one change. What is wrong is to ignore the will of

the people and disguise this. Do you see that as the tactic? That this is

a disguise to remain forever in the single market? I would not say that.

People are getting fed up of the negativity coming out of the

European Union. We need to get on with this. This was a democratic

result, a vote to leave the European Union. The people are the boss. We

need to deliver that. I can see what people are trying to do. People are

getting pretty fed up and we need to get on with where we are going. How

much longer should Theresa May pursue the negotiations to get a

trade deal? They've been given a task and we need to fall in behind

them so they can get the best possible deal. That is not how

negotiations work. The British people voted for this and they will

be seen off. When should David Davis walk away from these negotiations?

To allow proper preparations for the alternative plan, our view is

Christmas. Different deal. The mischief makers are saying it means

you crash out. You don't. You go for another type of deal. So you would

like him to walk away if there's not been any progress. Do you agree that

there is not a cliff edge? We've made it clear, even the Home

Secretary said, it is unthinkable to think about no deal. We need to

listen to businesses. It is great that they've come out and written to

the government and I don't agree that they want a permanent Brexit.

We need to give them an opportunity to address concerns about access to

the single market and listen to them. Members of the cabinet like

the Home Secretary have said it is unthinkable to walk away without a

deal. Why was she wrong? She's really saying there is a strong

preference but if you cannot reach that agreement you've got to prepare

for the alternative. The worst thing in the world is that we let this

drag on and we get trapped into a really bad deal because we are

desperate, because we haven't done the preparation. We end up being

trapped in a really bad deal. Do you back Labour's proposal to block no

deal? Absolutely. Whatever deal has got to be good for the economy and

for consumer rights, with the bill we are supposed to be discussing at

this week but it has been delayed. Phase one of the negotiations have

been put back to December. We need to be clear it is not about time, it

is about the detail. Do you think a transition deal is vital? If you're

not prepared to walk away from negotiations you will be completely

sealed off and we've got to abide by that. People saw the vision of what

Brexit is and we've got to deliver it. If you say we will take whatever

you give us it will not work out. I think we need to get on with

delivering it. Would you like to see a transition deal in place? Whatever

works for anyone around the table. What people are asking for is to get

on and do it. If we need to then fine. Let's have a clear direction

of travel and let's get there. One of the things that makes deliver

that deal is the UK Government saying that there is more money that

can be put onto the table to guarantee that. If that makes it

happen would you support the government doing that? This is the

fundamental challenge we are facing and we need to get on and deliver it

because people expect it to be done. In recent years, hundreds of Britons

have travelled to fight for so-called Islamic State

in Syria and Iraq. While some have returned to the UK,

the head of MI5 confirmed earlier this month that many had

been killed, and yesterday, one In recent years, hundreds of Britons

have travelled to fight for so-called Islamic State

in Syria and Iraq. While some have returned to the UK,

the head of MI5 confirmed earlier this month that many had

been killed, and yesterday, one government minister fuelled

the debate about how to deal with UK foreign fighters, saying that

converts to so-called Islamic State believed in an "extremely hateful

doctrine" and should Yesterday, International Development

Minister Rory Stewart told the BBC's Pienaar's Politics that "the only

way of dealing with them will be, to have travelled to Iraq and Syria

to fight for IS, of which almost As prime minister, David Cameron

authorised drone strikes against Britons who fought

for IS in Syria. Earlier this month, the head of MI5,

Andrew Parker, confirmed that around 130 of those fighters

had been killed. Amongst them is British

IS recruiter Sally-Anne Jones, known as the White Widow,

who is reported to have been killed Following her death,

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said British IS fighters in Syria

and Iraq had made themselves who could end up on "the wrong end

of an RAF or USAF missile". But the independent reviewer

of terrorism legislation, Max Hill QC, argued that Britons

who join IS through "naivety" should be spared prosecution

if they return home, and instead be supported

to reintegrate into society. Joining me now is Rafaello

Pantucci, a counter-terrorism expert from the Royal United

Services Institute. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Rory

Stewart, the minister we were talking about, has backed off a

little bit from the comments he made yesterday. Did he overstepped the

mark or was he for a single government thinks but cannot say? I

think he's expressing a view which is the easiest solution for these

individuals. If you look at individuals who have gone to fight

alongside so-called Islamic State, you are looking at individuals

participating in an organisation that has repeatedly stated that it

wants to launch attacks in the West. With these individuals, when they

come home, there is not necessarily a case that can be made against

them. These people come back and it is not like the information around

them comes from secret of sources. People should be prosecuted when

they come back. If that case cannot be built then security services have

got to do a very difficult job of monitoring someone for a very long

period of time. In many ways he is stating the easiest solution. We

need to remember that this should not be the prescriptive approach.

We've got to bear in mind that with these individuals they are

individual cases they've got to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Do you expect to see an upsurge in targeted killings? We've seen the

administration in the United States has stepped up targeted strikes.

We've seen the UK has openly started to say it has been targeting

individuals. We can see that the trend has been in that direction

already. It is not a particularly novel statement. Now that we're

seeing so-called Islamic State shrinking back, the number of

fighters are dwindling and the question is, what ends up happening

with these individuals? Andrew Parker says 130 UK nationals have

been killed whilst fighting for Islamic State. How significant is

that number? The official number that is coded as around 850. You're

talking about six or seven of that number confirmed dead. It's possible

that number is higher. I think you're looking at a fairly

substantial number. What we don't know is exactly what these people

are doing next. It is unclear about what is going on in the battlefield.

People picked up by the Kurdish forces, these people are sitting in

jails. What will happen to them? Are they requesting advice? How are they

being tracked within the system? Not everyone who went out there went to

fight alongside Islamic State. A lot of individuals went out to fight

against the Al-Qaeda group. The issue is that we don't have a grip

on exactly what has happened to these individuals, how many of them

are out there, and what they are doing next. Thank you for joining us

today. Johnny Mercer, what was wrong with what Rory Stewart said

yesterday when he said the only way of dealing with them will be to kill

them? Absolutely nothing at all. Why did he have two clarify his

statement? Some aspects of the media will say that he is advocating

breaking the law. There is a clear case. Some will be reconciled. But I

don't buy this about naivete. These people want to die and they have

actively gone against our country, and ultimately I'm a patriot. These

people expect us to deal with them. For some of them, the only outcome

is to target them whilst they are away from the UK so that we can keep

people safe. That the first duty of government and I support that 100%.

You stand by the comments your colleague made and that is the

government line. That is not something I can comment on. I can

comment on the right thing to do and that is to keep people safe at home

and those with a dedicated ambition to bring down this country have

given up their right to freedom is that we enjoy in this country and

should be targeted. If you go and fight for a foreign power and are

committed to killing British troops then you lose any rights at all and

you should expect to be targeted. I don't agree. The 350 that returned

back into the country, only 101 of them have been convicted of any

criminal activity. We know lots of people at risk of radicalisation, of

grooming. The government agenda has not worked. It does not empower

communities to address the issues. I'd like to know what has happened

with the 200 plus people who were not convicted, what work has been

done, how do we know what has been done so we can prevent it from

happening again? All these efforts to counteract people, you've got to

have a hardline we are individuals who actively try and endanger

citizens of this country are prosecuted. Where that is a targeted

strike, anything we can do, we have to do that. We cannot become this

soft nation. Ultimately this death cult, it's

totally wrong. And that is what Rory Stewart has been saying. But how do

we know they have committed a crime bottle for example? Nobody gets

targeted simply because they go to Syria, they get targeted because

they build up an intelligence profile which is very clear. Some of

these go up to the Secretary of State. The idea that somebody could

have just gallivant it off to Syria and get drowned is just completely

wrong! You have to have built up a significant profile to get targeted.

Isn't that what Rory is saying, but if you have gone out of there, than

you can expect to be killed? Because the vast majority would have gone

there with the explicit intention of joining Isis and targeting the

United Kingdom and of all the rest of it. That's what has to be

defended. That's what Rory is talking about. 250 who have not been

convicted, who have come back, we need to understand what's been

happening. I understand there is a counter-terrorism strategy but some

of this is about preventing people going out and understanding what it

is. And the Home Office is working really hard on that, you look at

what they. Do around Prevent but what I'm saying is these individuals

take up arms against this country and yes, we go out and kill them.

Let's talk about Max Hill QC, because he says that the authorities

have looked at a number of people who have come back from Syria and

decided that they do not justify prosecution and really we should be

looking at reintegration and moving away from any notion that we're

going to lose a generation from this travel. Is he right? In individual

cases, clearly he is right. I wrote a paper about reconciliation and

whether or not we can reconcile these people. In the tier one

targets I'm afraid you cannot reconcile them and Rory is right,

they want to die and we should do that. Is he being soft? There is not

a soft or bad element about this - we need to do the right thing for

people. Vulnerable people who have been turned into jihadists and so

on, I don't buy the premise that people wander out there and do not

know what they're doing, everybody knows what Isis is about and I'm

afraid people who make that serious decision, they have got to take

responsible achieve for it. Why should the British governance spend

time and resources trying to sift through varying degrees of

commitment to Islamic State via it is based on being young and naive or

whether you're fully signed up to the project, when they are

concentrating on security here? What Max Hill QC is talking about is,

we've got to apply the UK law in terms of what it actually says, if

somebody has committed a criminal acts then they must be. Prosecuted

but is this actually going to address the longer term strategy

about radicalisation? No, it's not. That's why we've got to do a lot

more in terms of understanding why people feel the need to go out and

what are the mechanisms - social media platforms, computer games...?

But you said there was a significant number of people doing out there who

were naive teenagers who did not know what they were going out to do?

I think people are radicalised from different reasons, and the fact that

these people who came back, which Max is talking about, we have to

understand what their family were thinking, how they feel about it,

what information they are able to give us, we've got to work with.

Them just to say they should lose their citizenship is not right.

Young girls who went out to become jihadi brides, should they be

treated differently, should they be targeted as well? Each one is a

different case. This is not a mass exercise of killing everyone who

went to. Syria it is all done strictly according to the law. To

conduct these strikes is really, really difficult, to get all of the

intelligence lined up, to get it authorised. Those who break the law,

yes, they must be prosecuted. We talk about it in Westminster all the

time - these freedoms are hard-fought and this is part of it.

Should we be withdrawing citizenship from people who fight for Isis,

whatever the motivation? Well, I think we need to look at the

evidence, and that is the crux. Have we got the evidence to say that

actually they did directly go to fight? What else would they be doing

out there? There are lots of people who did not really know the extent

of the issues. They need a lot more support, their families may not be

happy with what's happened. They might change their mind once they

are out there and realise, this is not what I signed up for. They

should be given a second chance? They should be given the

opportunity, yes. At her conference speech last month,

Theresa May said that solving the housing crisis

was going to be her Well, the Daily Mail

columnist Stephen Glover thinks the prime minister should put

new taxes on the many empty homes that are owned

by super-rich investors. This building here was

a working Tube station once. It was also a war command centre

under Winston Churchill. The Ministry of Defence sold it

in 2014 for ?53 million. It's hardly surprising in this part

of London, you may say. But what's really shocking

is that it has been It's a similar story in many

parts of central London. Earlier this year, in the wake

of the horror of Grenfell Tower, figures from Kensington and Chelsea

council showed that 1,652 properties in just that one very wealthy

borough were listed as unoccupied. Of these, 603 were recorded

as having been empty And unlike Jeremy Corbyn,

I certainly don't believe that empty But let's tax the empty

houses of the super-rich. The local authorities in England

are already allowed to charge a premium of up to 50% on council

tax if properties have been empty and unfurnished

for more than two years. But in Kensington and Chelsea,

the maximum extra charge would amount to around

?1,000 a year. For a billionaire,

that's chump change. Instead, the Government should

encourage councils to slap on a much It should also review stamp duty

and council tax bands. It can't be right that

in Kensington and Chelsea, the owner of a property worth

?325,000 pays the same top rate of council tax as a billionaire

in a house worth ?50 million. These changes might not bring

in a great deal more revenue, or stop the super-rich from buying

up much-needed housing stock. But they would signal that

Theresa May's Tory government has the right moral priorities

and that its heart And Stephen Glover joins us here in

the. Studio you said that councils in England already have powers to

increase council tax on empty properties, so what are the new

taxes that you are calling for? In the first place, in the case of

Kensington and Chelsea, if property is vacant for more than two years

they can slap on an extra council tax but ?1000 a year is so

negligible for a billionaire. I cannot give you an exact figure but

I want a tax which is much more swingeing and makes a very rich

people think twice. So you would like to see amounts of money raised

in order to add as a deterrent to people being able to buy those

properties and leave them empty, but you admit that at the moment any new

taxes probably won't raise large amount of money or solve the housing

crisis but it could look as if the government had its heart in the

right place, is this more about that? Is not just about that. Any

more money the government can get without punishing ordinary people,

ordinary voters, is a good thing, but but it is also to show that the

government has its sense of moral priorities. Theresa May has been

going on about it again and again, reaching out to third just about

managing. These people are amazed that somebody can have a house like

that in London and leave it empty for years and pay a few thousand

pounds in council tax. Would you support new, much higher, taxes on

these MC properties bought by investors that only the thing is

with tax, is, getting the most amount of money you possibly can

into the. Exchequer if that is going to contribute and not keep people

out of the country... Are you worried that it would? There is

always an element that if you increase taxes on higher earners,

they will go elsewhere if it ultimately the NHS and the public

services will suffer, so I don't think it is quite as simple as that.

But if this would improve the housing market then I would support

it. This is targeted at people with empty houses, it's not... It's about

people who are not occupying them. As I say, I don't think they're all

going to disappear from the country. If they don't even live here and

they don't contribute to the country, then absolutely. You would

be in favour of that. On those conditions. What about allowing

councils to be able to borrow substantial amounts to build homes?

This is Sajid Javid's comments yesterday. I think we have got to do

more on housing. I'm really pleased Theresa May has taken this up, but

we haven't done anything about it for a long. Time for my generation

to get on the housing ladder now is extremely tough, and we have to do

better. So would you like councils to have the ability to borrow to

build homes? Yes, people want to own their own homes but a lot of people

want good quality social rented accommodation, and politicians it is

our job to provide what people need. I understand about owning your own

house, absolutely, and that is a great thing, but in the meantime if

we can't we have to do better on social housing and I would support

that. So, 5000 council homes a year, announced by Theresa May? There's a

lot of detail to be gone into on that. There is a review on housing

being done at the moment. Is this important politically, are you

trying to head off Jeremy Corbyn and Labour making further inroads on

issues like housing? Yes, it is partly that. Housing is at toxic

issue and many people feel very aggrieved, because housing is so

expensive. And this one measure which isn't talking about is not

going to solve everything, there are other measures which will do that,

but it will show that government knows that people rightly feel

outraged that a house can lie empty for two years, which is worth ?30

million and the person who owns that house is not there. Would you

support higher taxes on into properties? Absolutely. We've got a

housing crisis and we've got to make sure that developers are not just

seeking international investment, especially in London, because lots

of people just cannot get into the housing market at. All I think we

need to look at the longer term strategy. Building 5000 homes a year

is just not good enough. Labour councils are building thousands of

homes a year already and we need to be clear about the shortage in the

housing market. Taxing these properties is one way of doing it,

and other would be to requisition the empty properties - do you

support that? What happened with Grenfell Tower, what a Jeremy Corbyn

said was absolutely right in terms of an immediate position. In the

longer term what do we do, that's more. Complex but I do believe there

are too many empty homes in London, and we need to maybe look at what we

do around those and how we tax them. But should empty properties going

forward be requisitioned to help with the housing crisis? Why not? It

could be a short-term thing. I think there is an opportunity to look at

it, we shouldn't just ignore it, because the government is not giving

us any other proposals. That would be a radical policy and it would go

further than what you're suggesting? Too radical, we must respect

property rights. Somebody who owns a house worth ?10 million has the same

rights as somebody who owns a house worth half ?1 million, it is a

principle of law and you can't go around houses if you feel it. How

would you do this legally as a short-term measure? You've got to

look at the UK law and what the provisions are. But there are not

provisions for it at the moment? In London, for example, why could we

not have a lease agreement to acquire some of it and use it for

housing? I think we've got to be creative about this. So you would

like to look at the legal aspects of taking back properties owned by

wealthy investors? Why can't, when we've got a housing

crisis, we look at short-term leases so that we can use it as temporary

accommodation and bring it up to standard? We need to be really

careful, it is the rule of law. I've spoken at a Conservative Association

and started talking about housing. I've bought my house now but I

didn't before that. People are fed up with being demonised. We have to

build more houses if we're going to tackle this. It is not as as

requisitioning. We've got to go on a revolutionary house-building drive.

From today, drivers using the dirtiest cars will have to pay an

extra ?10 a day to enter central London.

Most of the cars affected will have been bought before 2006 and will now

be subject to a ?21 charge in the city's congestion area.

The policy is aimed at reducing the impact of air

pollution which a study by the Lancet Commission

on Pollution has linked to up to fifty 50,000 premature deaths

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, welcomed the measure as one of ways

This is what he had to say this morning.

We have a health crisis in London caused by poor quality air. More

than 9000 died because of bad quality air. There are children with

underdeveloped lungs because of it, there are adults who suffer from a

variety of conditions linked to the poor quality air so today's charge

is the toughest charge in the world for a very good reason. We need to

have the most polluting vehicles off the streets of London. Joining us

now... From Brighton, specialist in respiratory medicine. Sadiq Khan

talks about a health crisis. Would you agree with him? I do not think

there is a health crisis. There is a long-term problem, we know that air

pollution is not good for you, it has been difficult to say whether it

is all that bad for you. This issue about the number of deaths it

causes, it is misrepresented. In what way? The Lancet commission says

it is costing 50,000 premature deaths per year. Is that wrong?

Completely. Anybody who says that either has not read the paperwork or

is misrepresenting this for whatever reason. The issue is, in 2008, the

committee worked out there was a certain number of days lost from the

population as a result of air pollution. It works out at 20-30

days. It is not 40,000 people who die. It is a lot of people who lose

a little bit of life. If you top that up, you can say it is

equivalent to 40,000 lives. There are no premature deaths you can

measure as a result of air pollution. Do you agree those

figures are wrong to say that they die as a result? It is definitely

prematurely. If you die from a heart condition or a lung condition, our

pollution may have had an effect on that. We know what effect it has on

children. We work with a range of experts, the Royal College of

physicians, paediatrics, British Heart Foundation, they all say it

has an impact on your health. Is he right to say there is not a direct

causal link, you don't have it put on your death certificate? That if

pollution does not directly kill, they have an impact on people

suffering. Yes, it is a statistical model in the same way they calculate

deaths from smoking. I think we find it better to talk about the impact

on your daily life. We've just had a baby, he is four weeks premature and

we are going to hospital through one of the most polluted roads in

Europe. That is terrifying, as a parent. You can taste, when you

stand in Oxford Circus, a level of air pollution. It is not a good

thing. Anything that combats that must be advantageous. You would

presume. There is clearly a lot less pollution in London compared to the

1970s, we have seen a 70% decline, 60% since 2000, and we are on track

to meet our self-imposed target. Much of this argument is about

certain specific areas in the country. We want to take additional

action. We don't know for sure... That would be a good thing. It

would, but the question is how much benefit you are going to see from

it. If you're talking about this charge, it targets a very small

number of vehicles. But actually, the oxide in London, if you look at

London roads, 60% comes from traffic, a quarter from diesel cars,

a quarter from buses, a quarter from HGVs. Another from elsewhere. You're

talking a total of 15%. If you take out the small number of really

polluting cars you're still left with a lot that are efficient but

produce more nitrogen oxide. You won't see any tangible change. Will

you not see any tangible change? Is it going to make a big difference?

The charge is an essential step. As a package of measures it is

essential. We have those smog is that we could see, if I could just

finished my point... We had the clean air act, that cleaned up the

air. We have a similar thing today. It is diesel cars causing this

pollution. We need the same action again with these vehicles. It is

madness we are driving vehicles that harm our health in this day and age.

Why are you so reluctant to support measures that, even if they have a

small impact, will be a help in combination with other factors

brought into play? They could reduce the number of people dying

prematurely. It is not nitrogen oxide, it is particles which are

killing people. In relation to this, it will probably make a 1%

difference to the amount in London. That is the sort of figure. It will

target for people who drive older cars, at the moment it is taking the

bottom out of the second-hand car market, which means people with a

post-2006 diesel car will find it difficult to sell their car and

switch across. I think as a policy measure it is misguided. Is it

misguided, either better things that could be done? Things that would

solve or mitigate it? It is definitely not misguided. We need a

range of measures to help people switch to cleaner forms of

transport. It is not their fault that they are driving these

vehicles. People on low incomes, we should have targeted scrappage

scheme. Other countries are doing it. We should be doing it. This is a

good first step. Thank you, both of you. If you've been looking at

photographs on Instagram you might think that Clapp has a new MP. He

appears to be an exemplary public servant doing all the things a good

MP should like catching up with his constituents. Talking to local

businesses. Campaigning and knocking on doors. He's even been schmoozing

the political elite like Ed Miliband. It looks like he's been

catching up with the current Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Very

impressive. Is everything as it seems? Joining us is Patrick

O'Donnell, the self-proclaimed MP for Clapham. What are you doing? It

started a few months ago with my friends, we would take photos

spontaneously randomly, so they have a political theme and relate to

politics and feature me pretending to be an MP with lots of political

staged things such as launderettes complaining about the high price of

laundry for students. So it's a bit of fun, it's tongue in cheek. Why

would you want to pretend to be an MP? There is the fun, silly side,

and also what I found when I did these, it is quite a serious issue

in terms of the high cost of the laundry. Some important things are

raised such as young people being engaged in politics. One thing I

focused on was the need for young people to vote. Lets see if you know

all the things a good constituent MP should now. Do you know the cost of

a pint of milk? About 45p. What is it? About that. Johnny is nodding

hopefully. What about state pension, what is the basic state pension?

I've no idea but probably not enough. It is about 140. It used to

be 125. Definitely agree with that. It is not as high as that, 115. That

doubles if you're married. What is your favourite biscuit? Custard

creams. Dark chocolate McVities. You've all managed to do that. Do

you have a genuine ambition? I definitely want to get involved in

politics in some way. I'm only 18 so it is quite early to say. They want

to get younger people involved. You're looking at yourself. How did

he do? Should get involved straightaway. He's a natural. Thank

you very much. There is time to find out the answer to our quiz. What

happened next in that meeting. Do you have any idea what happened when

Macron was with his ministers? I have seen it. Lets have a look.

Well, that is what the dog thought of that meeting. How embarrassing.

He has the right idea. That is it for today. Thank you for being our

guests of the day. I will be back tomorrow.